Resetting the Post-Scalia Supreme Court by Linda Greenhouse
'In the days since Justice Antonin Scalias death, there has been plenty of talk about the substantial impact his absence will have on the Supreme Courts docket. Id like to shift the focus to the Roberts court itself.
Fate has handed the justices a chance to hit reset.
If that seems an uncharitable, even tasteless observation, so be it. Ive become increasingly concerned, as my recent columns have suggested, that the conservative majority is permitting the court to become an agent of partisan warfare to an extent that threatens real damage to the institution. Justice Scalias outsize role on and off the bench contributed to that dangerous development to an outsize degree.
Im not claiming that he was completely responsible. Given the Supreme Courts place in American life, there is no way it can avoid getting singed by the polarizing politics of the day. Nor was Justice Scalia solely to blame for the courts drop in public esteem as demonstrated by a Gallup Poll in September showing that more people disapprove of the Supreme Court (50 percent) than approve of it (45 percent). While this is a notable departure from the historic trend, other governmental bodies have fared far worse (Congress has a 16 percent approval rating), and the court is to some degree caught in the back draft of generalized public mistrust of government.
Its a situation that nonetheless calls for concern and exquisite care. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared to reflect that concern, and not for the first time, when he spoke earlier this month at New England School of Law in Boston. Contrary to the impression created by highly partisan Senate confirmation hearings, he said, Supreme Court justices are not in pursuit of an agenda and dont work as Republicans or Democrats.
Maybe not, but two weeks before the chief justices visit to Boston, the court, acting on its own motion, turned a statutory case into a major constitutional one when it expanded its review of President Obamas deportation-deferral program to include the question of whether the president has violated his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And a few days after the Boston visit, the court took the astonishing step of blocking the administrations major climate-change initiative before a lower court had even had a chance to review it.
The take care question mapped perfectly onto the dissent that Justice Scalia read from the bench in June 2012 when the court struck down portions of Arizonas anti-immigrant statute. (Chief Justice Roberts was in the majority.) Justice Scalia took the occasion to excoriate the Obama administration for an earlier version of its deportation-deferral program a policy that was not at issue in the Supreme Court case and had not even been announced when the case was argued.
Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executives refusal to enforce the nations immigration laws? Justice Scalia demanded, in a public performance that was as inappropriate as it was attention getting.'>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/opinion/resetting-the-post-scalia-supreme-court.html?
Raster
(20,998 posts)I believe the uber-negative tone and timber of the SCOTUS could be firmly laid at the feet of Scalia. The man had his own beliefs and moral compass and considered both vastly superior to anyone else's, and refused to compromise or even consider another viewpoint. His latest musings - and official opinion - on racial equality were downright offensive.
Scalia changed from origionalism to activism depending on the matters at hand. In short, he firmly believed his judicial shit did not stink. Unfortunately, the malodorous odors of racism, sexism and homophobia permeated everything he touched.
It is long past time for a reset of the SCOTUS, one that better suits today's world and today's United States.
elleng
(130,974 posts)so I post whenever she does. She does it periodically, in the NYT.
As she said, 'Ive become increasingly concerned, as my recent columns have suggested, that the conservative majority is permitting the court to become an agent of partisan warfare to an extent that threatens real damage to the institution. Justice Scalias outsize role on and off the bench contributed to that dangerous development to an outsize degree.'
Raster
(20,998 posts)...I remarked "good riddance" and that "he had been a malignancy on the SCOTUS." Harsh, but true. I don't believe Scalia or Thomas ever really belonged on the SCOTUS anyway.