Below is my column in The Hill on a growing crisis at the Supreme Court for Chief Justice John Roberts. A new breach of confidentiality shows cultural crisis at the Court. While the earlier leaking of the Dobbs decision could have come from a clerk, much of the recent information could only have originated with a justice.
Here is the column:
Chief Justice John Roberts has always been “a man more sinned against than sinning.” That line from Shakespeare’s “King Lear” seems increasingly apt for the head of our highest court.
Roberts was installed almost exactly 20 years ago and soon found himself grappling with a series of controversies that have rocked the court as an institution.
He is now faced with another monumental scandal, after the New York Times published leaked confidential information that could only have come from one of the nine members of the court.
By most accounts, Roberts is popular with his colleagues and someone with an unquestioning institutional knowledge and loyalty. He is, in many respects, the ideal chief justice: engaging, empathetic, and unfailingly respectful of the court’s justices and staff.
Roberts has been chief justice during some of the court’s most contentious times. Major decisions like overturning Roe v. Wade (which Roberts sought to avoid) have galvanized many against the court.
According to recent polling, fewer than half of Americans (47 percent) hold a favorable opinion of the court (51 percent have an unfavorable view). Of course, that level of support should inspire envy in the court’s critics in Congress (18 percent approval) and the media (which only 32 percent trust).
Some, however, want to express their dissatisfaction more directly and even permanently. This week, Alaskan Panos Anastasiou, 76, was indicted with 22 federal charges for threatening to torture and kill the six conservative justices.
Another man, Nicolas Roske, 28, will go on trial next June for attempting to assassinate Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
In the meantime, law professors have rallied the mob, calling for them to be more aggressive against the conservative justices and even calling for Congress to cut off their air conditioning to make them retire.
Politicians have also fueled the rage against the court. On one infamous occasion, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared in front of the Supreme Court, “I want to tell you, [Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Brett] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
Yet, it is what has occurred inside the court that should be most troubling for Roberts. On May 2, 2022, someone inside the court leaked to Politico a copy of the draft of the opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade.
It was one of the greatest breaches of ethics in the court’s history. The subsequent investigation failed to produce any charges for the culprit or culprits.
Now, the New York Times has published highly detailed accounts of the internal deliberations of the court. The account seemed largely directed at the conservative justices and Roberts.
Some of the information on deliberations in three cases (Trump v. Anderson, Fischer v. United States, and Trump v. United States) had to come either directly or indirectly from a justice. Some of these deliberations were confined to members of the court.
Seeing a pattern in this and past leaks, one law professor, Josh Blackmun, went so far as to suggest that it is “likely that [Justice Elena] Kagan, or at least Kagan surrogates, are behind these leaks.”
That remains pure speculation. Yet after the earlier Dobbs leak, Roberts is now dealing with leaks coming out of the confidential conference sessions and memoranda of the justices. This occurs after Roberts pledged that security protocols had been strengthened to protect confidentiality.
The disclosure of this information to third parties violates Canon 4(D)(5) of judicial ethics: “A judge should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s official duties.”
Roberts and the court have long maintained that judicial ethics rules that apply to other federal judges are merely advisory for them.
However, some in Congress are now pushing for new binding ethics rules that could make fundamental changes to the court. Justice Kagan is supporting the ethical changes, which would allow lower court judges to render judgment on the justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also declared publicly that she does not “have any problem” with an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court.
A truly “enforceable” code would presumably allow the lower court judges appointed by the chief justice to compel the removal of a justice from a given case. That could flip the outcome on a closely divided court.
Given the latest leak, what would such a panel do with a justice who has breached the confidentiality of internal judicial deliberations? Under the Constitution, a justice can be removed by Congress only through impeachment. Impeachment of a justice has happened only once, in 1805, when Associate Justice Samuel Chase was acquitted.
Roberts has the demeanor and decency of a great chief justice. Despite those strengths, however, some are now wondering if he has the drive and determination to confront his colleagues on a worsening situation at the court. Many years ago, I believed that Roberts erred in failing to publicly rebuke Justice Samuel Alito for publicly displaying disagreement with President Barack Obama during a State of the Union address. Although I was sympathetic with Alito’s objections to Obama’s misleading statements about the Citizens United ruling, it was still a breach of judicial decorum.
Roberts is a good chief in bad times. He can hardly be blamed for the alleged abandonment of the most fundamental ethical principles by justices or clerks. Yet, the court is now in an undeniable crisis of faith. For decades, institutional faith and fealty have maintained confidentiality and civility. Once again, that tradition has been shattered by the reckless and self-serving conduct of those entrusted with the court’s business.
For a man who truly reveres the court, it is an almost Lear-like betrayal of an isolated and even tragic figure. It is time for an institutional reckoning for Roberts in calling his colleagues to account.
While there have been a few prior leaks, the Supreme Court has been largely immune from the weaponized leaks so characteristic of Washington. In a city that floats on leaks, the court was an island of integrity. And more has been lost at the court than just confidentiality. There is a loss of confidence, even innocence, at an institution that once aspired to be something more than a source for the New York Times.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
who is running the country? All Democrats admitted Biden was not capable of being president by switching to Harris!
Tulsi Gabbard has told us who, repeatedly!
LOL….Democrats have NO problem with enforced fascism and ending the supreme court! The DEI Democrat justices ignore the Constitution and should be removed! Democrats ignore the rule of law….so Should Republicans! They are fighting a Civil War and currently republicans are funding it!
Mr. Turley, Just finished listening to the book. Books this complex I will listen to two or three times to better comprehend the meaning. After completing it the first time I realized that the only time you voice changed was when you spoke about someone named Cook. On round two I will try to figure out why. If I had one tenth of the political knowledge you have I would be a happy man. You are most inspiring. Thank you.
I am stunned that the author could portray Roberts as an example of a fine member of our SCOTUS.
He has been such a disappointment to conservatives that many openly suggest the man is being
coerced into betraying his own political philosophy. He has made so many head-scratching, wrong
decisions that millions are convinced someone has something on the guy. Again, I am baffled how
any reasonable adult could look at John’s record and come away with a glowing evaluation of him.
Balkinization is the cause and, so now, adherence is the requirement. It’s time for decent people to play hard lowball, too. Hard and cruel. Can’t leave all the chips on the table for deviants and traitors to stack. No trust, all verification.
You’re seriously blaming Jack Balkin?! What did he ever do to cause this?
lol. never heard of that guy. you are quick and charming. gonna check out his stuff, thanks for the hu.
I just came back online and the browser homepage has a big headliner, “From moderate to manipulator: Behind the unmasking of John Roberts.” The story portrays him as “a masterful MAGA manipulator.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/from-moderate-to-manipulator-behind-the-unmasking-of-john-roberts/ar-AA1r2ztO?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=b68ae28db98a46d6988bbd050b1f4412&ei=13
Indeed, I counted 18 anti-Trump stories on the pop-up “Widgets,” and just one pro-Trump, one neutral.
This is what Media, especially MSM, has done to our country.
This constant drumming, droning, pummeling, non-stop attempt to unravel and manipulate public sentiment has reached a fevered pitch, and we are still six weeks away.
Night nite everyone.
The only undecideds in this election are the ones who haven’t yet received their money for voting for a dead person.
The pollsters know that know that anyone who says they are voting for Trump do so at their own peril. The Democrats have proven to be vicious, just like their forerunners, the Brownshirts. The pollsters also know that they can make more money keeping this thing close.
‘Lin’ How True! .the good news here is that this is basically a repeat of 2016 with most of the MSM against Trump then, too.. and Hillary was a much more formidable opponent than puppet Harris and her “I’m a middle class girl” platform promising to fix everything she & Joe broke… Hopefully the Votes will ignore the MSM and repeat 2016, too! ..after all.. even Harris’s VP choice Walz let the Truth slip out in PA when he said: “WE CAN”T AFFORD 4 MORE YEARS OF THIS…’
I knew that Obamacare and Gay Marriage was going to pass at least a month before the decision became public. There were a bunch of Iranians holding a meeting at a hotel out near Anaheim, CA. It was the same time and same place SAGES was holding their annual get together. A participant from SAGES walked into the wrong banquet room and the crowd was discussing the passage of Obamacare and Gay Marriage by SCOTUS. So the leaks from the DC have been going on for a long time.
^ complete and utter BS ^
Bullsh*t. This story is not only ridiculous and obviously made up, it’s also impossible since Sibelius was a 2012 decision, and Obergefell was 2015.
Look at some of the comments on this forum, and it’s easy to understand what’s going on here. The bottom line is, the Democrat left just doesn’t care about the impact of a discredited Supreme Court. They intend to win “by any means necessary”, just like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and yes, Hitler too, before them. They’ve written as much. They’ve preached it. They reject America’s Constitution, and our republican form of government. Why then, would a leftist Justice enforce anything Constitutional? If on the losing side of the court, a leftist Justice reacts “duty bound to his/her conscience”, by violating 230 years of Supreme Court ethics and confidentiality. They are more than willing to do this, because they never supported the institution of the USSC, nor the Constitution that established it. They justify it in their own minds as “doing the right thing”, according to their own relative scale of “right” and “wrong”, and good and evil. In reaction to their breach of ethics, the leftist Justices the endorse the radical lefts cry for “ethics reform”, meaning, eliminating conservative justices or their influence upon the court, by ceding the USSC ethics authority to lower court. The leftist judges on that court, who again, intend to win for greater socialism “by any means necessary”, will find fault with EVERY ONE of the conservative justices, and lead the calls for their impeachment. We saw the same “lawfare” in play in EVERY ONE of the J6 trials, every one of the Trump civil and criminal trials, and both impeachments. It’s one of those “heads, I win, tails, you lose” coin flip type of things. It’s the ideal Alinsky type move, i.e. it’s a tactic that “lawfare” practitioners absolutely enjoy, because first they set the legal rules, then they violate those rules to win, while everyone else obeys the rules, and loses.
You said a mouthful of truth my friend.
There’s absolutely no doubt Democrats would prefer a perversion or perverted justice they can control and direct to a dispassionate and principled justice they cannot. Just to remind here, though – we also still occasionally hear Obama’s “no such thing as a self-made man,” etc., which, let’s face it, is just another way of saying no one is truly entitled to private property. (Since others have aided in its acquisition, they are, collectively, believed to be the rightful owners. Or so it is seemingly suggested.) When Democrats reign supreme they will not only continue their effort to jail the opposition but also turn to focus on the acquisition of our property. What is left will be an almost tribal totalitarianism to rule over the former nation, now just a vast impoverished territory. Look – Obama says “look,” I generally say, “listen” – look, it’s only a joke until its not, until the true nature of mankind acts to once again reveal itself. America, at its very inception (early 1600s), was first and foremost an intellectual endeavor. Things like law, and justice, are simply ideological creations, but they have lent themselves to an organizational structure that has proven very prosperous for the many. Such a reprimitivization, as the Democrat-left suggests, would very likely, ultimately, cost the lives of hundreds of millions worldwide. No one is safe in an environment like that, including even themselves.
Turley appears to defend the indefensible as Roberts has been AWOL on holding any kind of Judges accountable for their persecution prosecution of Trump and those around him. I look back at the General Flynn flim-flam rigged trial by two corrupt federal judges.
Hear hear!
Justice Roberts has a fine line to walk, which in a sane, civil world would be unnecessary….
Jonathan: Public trust in the SC is at a historic lows. That’s because the public no longer believes the Court can be “fair and impartial”. That responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of Chief Justice Roberts who has refused to reign in the MAGA wing of the Court. He should have required that Justices Alito and Thomas recused themselves in some recent decisions–especially those in which both Justices had direct conflicts of interest. Roberts’ failure to do that shows he is a weak Chief Justice that has no control of his colleagues and is unwilling to apply recusal rules to Justices that apply to all other federal judges.
But Roberts’ problem goes way beyond failure to clean up his own house. Roberts has taken the position that he is not beholden to Congress. In May Roberts refused to meet the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss Justice Alioto’s flying of two flags supporting the Jan. 6 insurrection. He even refused to meet with the Committee over proposed court reforms. That shows Roberts thinks the Court is above the law. He forgets that under the Constitution Congress controls the purse strings of the Court, can change the composition of the SC, among other powers.
Roberts showed his true colors in the July 1 “immunity” decision. As reported by the NY Times Roberts took back that case from Alito and wrote it himself. Roberts ruled that a president is now a King who can commit crimes and be immune from prosecution. Most legal scholars believe Roberts ignored the Constitution and the view of the Founders that no person is above the law. And what is worse Roberts wrote that decision to benefit only DJT and had to make up new law out of whole cloth to do it. Retired conservative Judge and constitutional scholar Michael Luttig thinks Roberts’ “immunity” decision is the modern day equivalent of Plessy v. Ferguson–an abomination that ultimately will be reversed by a different Court.
Instead of being an “institutionalist” with the goal of every previous Chief Justice to first seek consensus, Roberts is now part of the MAGA wing of the Court. He is part of the problem not part of the solution. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read “The Buck Stops Here”. Roberts has failed to heed Truman’s advice.
LMAO. Roberts is an unreliable RINO appointee. He should have publicly objected to Jackson-Brown’s appointment when she was unable or unwilling to define a woman. He should not be an institutionalist, but a constitutionalist, unlike the three emotion based liberals on the court who have zero critical thinking skills.
Roberts is compromised, it’s glaringly obvious .
He may be protecting the leaker. If she turns out to be Sotomayor or Kagan, will you agree that they deserves impeachment?
I agree with you.
It would be completely inappropriate for a justice to express an opinion on a prospective appointment to the court.
Your post is too long and makes baseless claims that are simply your opinion and not fact.
The unprecedented lawfare against President Trump demanded the court hold corrupt courts to a consistent standard. Many crimes of previous presidents and presidential candidates have been IGNORED by the courts and the corrupt Justice Department. When a Trump-hater says “democracy,” I hear the word, “my power.” The President cannot be held hostage to partisan lower courts seeking to interrupt his presidency. This is why we never managed to impeach Obama, his AG, Clinton (impeached but not convicted), Hillary, and, of course the most corrupt, Biden. It is obvious to anyone that the prosecutions and lawsuits go only one way and that is to DENY my right to vote for the candidate I prefer by multiple unconstitutional means, such as taking him off the ballots, refusing to strike 3rd party candidates who have dropped out well before deadlines, illegally attaching up long-expired misdemeanors usually requiring a fine to a federal statute, allowing partisan Stalinesque prosecutors who pledge before their elections to “get Trump,” and so on. Yes, the court should finally expose who leaked the confidential Dobbs decision and let Congress decide whether to start impeachment against her (or him?). If one of the liberal block justices, there will be full-throated cry for protection.
What is wrong with MAGA? You say it like it’s a Communist or Terrorist supporting ideology or something.
The comments here demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Supreme Court. Roberts did not rule that “a president is now a King who can commit crimes” – how absurd! Where is that rule? He ruled judiciously that a president has immunity when conducting the countries business but not for crimes when out of office, to have ruled otherwise would have hamstrung a sitting president which would have had disastrous implications for a sitting president trying to govern in the best interests of the American people.
Exactly, and the over-rule of Roe v wade turning the abortion issue to the States was a no brainer, just what the Constitution says. We have way too many citizens, mostly women, behaving like petulant children.
Yes, Murderous, petulant adolescents.
* The immunity opinion was for Biden disguised as for Trump. Trump committed no crime. Biden has or had lawsuits regarding homicide for the reckless disregard for life in the immigration policy.
SCOTUS is not beholding to Congress nor the President. They are beholding to We the People to follow the Constitution with deliberate, careful thought. There we never leaks from SCOTUS until Obama whereby Obamacare and Gay Marriage decision was in the domain prior to any public announcement.
Liar.
‘Dennis McIntyre’ your Lavishly Made-Up Spin is pure poopycock.
As usual, you’re a filthy liar, and an ignoramus to boot.
He should have required that Justices Alito and Thomas recused themselves in some recent decisions–especially those in which both Justices had direct conflicts of interest.
Liar.
Justice Alioto’s flying of two flags supporting the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Liar.
Roberts has taken the position that he is not beholden to Congress.
That’s right, he isn’t, and it’s vitally important that any chief justice must take that same position.
Roberts thinks the Court is above the law
No, he doesn’t, but he correctly knows that it is not subordinate to Congress.
under the Constitution Congress controls the purse strings of the Court, can change the composition of the SC, among other powers.
Congress has very few powers over the judiciary. Judicial independence is one of the most important principles of our constitution, and any congress that tried to breach that independence would quickly find itself in hot water. It can increase the court’s size, but that’s about it.
Its power to defund the judiciary is exactly as hypothetical as its power to defund the armed forces, or the White House. What do you think would happen if it tried to defund the armed forces? Also, it can’t reduce the salary of any judge, just as it can’t reduce the president’s salary, so it is required to fund those salaries.
Roberts ruled that a president is now a King
No, he didn’t. At most he ruled that the president has the same absolute immunity that judges do.
Most legal scholars believe Roberts ignored the Constitution
No, they don’t.
Excellent column on a difficult issue. Who/what is a check on the Court, an institution that by its nature is immune from meddling by the political branches? Clearly, there should be something, but by nature any interference with the activities of the Court threatens that independence.
The main check on the judiciary is that it can’t rule sua sponte. It must wait until a plaintiff with standing brings a case before it.
The Israeli Supreme Court removed that restraint on itself, and the result is that Israel is now a dictatorship. It holds elections, but the elected government has no power, and must obey the orders of the judicial and legal establishment that is controlled by the self-appointed Supreme Court.
The DNC paid trolls are out in force. Ignore them.
The American Founders provided freedom, free speech, free press, free religion, free assembly, free enterprise, free markets, gun rights, privacy, private property, due process, infinitesimal government, etc.
The “Reconstruction Amendments” provided communism.
The 19th Amendment provided abortion causing the population to vanish.
What happened, America?
Say what?
Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
What’s a woman? How many sexes are there? What is marriage?
We know what happened, the Obama attempt at communist transformation happened.
When you say the Founders provided freedom, do you mean freedom to women in the same measure as men?
No historian would agree to that assertion. The ambiguity about whether people could be owned as private property post-1788 is a contradiction of “providing freedom”. That freedom wasn’t achieved until the mid 1960s. Communism is as abhorent as is owning slaves/JimCrow….both are vile and repugnant repudiations of freedom. America has rejected both tyrannies, and ask any American, we’re very proud of that.
See if you can see where this came from?
All around Mr. Trump there is a noticeable panic, as the old boob falls under the spell of some sweet young and ambitious floozie. Mr. Trump assumes, if he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it. He can also sleep with anyone he likes. But Mr. Trump forgets, Republicans have no moral qualms about killing people. But where you stick your penis is of great deal of concern to them. And it bothers them a great deal. NO SEX! The Bible is agin it!
Anonymous is as anonymous does. You are nothing more than a troll whose talking points from the left are meant to spew and foment hate and disinformation.
Oh, we can see where it came from, straight out your azzusual!
And where did this quote come from?
“Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
A locker room, how about this one, I never had sexual relations with that woman…
How about this one, You can keep your doctor if you like your doctor.
How about this more recent one, I never discussed my sons business ventures with him or any of his business partners.
Whew, that took two seconds, anymore questions?
Maybe you haven’t heard. Clinton nor Obama are running for President. trump is.
Really, I thought this was just a continuation of Obama and his crew of unelected bureaucrats fourth term. I could throw out some recent Harris-Walz statements if you like? How about this one, Walz stated, We can’t take four more years of this ! Kamala is a bit tougher off the top because she really hasn’t said much in her three interviews…
Well, Walz was correct! We can’t take 4 more years of this.
Yes he was!
No, the correct quote is that “When you are famous, women LET you do anything.” Quite the indictment of woman of some type, right? The ones who cozied up to Weinstein and others. Don’t forget, we know of the ones he coerced. Who were the ones who were willing and reaped the benefit, (including possibly Mrs. Gavin Newsom who Weinstein had a lot to say about).
Wait – aren’t you the guys who are condemning DJT for having allegedly “slept with a porn star”? You should celebrate it. Right? Oh, and that ugly woman who claims he assaulted her in an abandoned dressing room at Bergdorf’s some years ago – she can’t remember – after they ran around the store looking for the one ladies dressing room that wasn’t locked.
You mean the one where the NY Democrat council man pushed to change a sunset law that allowed Ms. Carroll snd her dog vagina to make her fraudulent claims in civil court. I read shortly after doing so, a woman filed suit against him for assaulting her years earlier. Wuite humorous and disgusting at the same time, George Conway needs to be held accountable.
That did not happen. I don’t know where the MAGA nuts got this idea, but it’s completely false.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, which could not find that the Constitution is not the Communist Manifesto, that secession is not prohibited and is fully constitutional, that immigration law must have been enforced, that Article 1, Section 8, allows taxation for only debt, defense, and general Welfare (i.e. basic infrastructure used by all or the whole), and regulation of only the value of money, commerce among the states, and land and naval forces, and that the 5th Amendment absolute right to private property allows only the owner dominion over all aspects and facets, including use, rent, pricing, and hiring, firing, directing, and paying employees, etc.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a [severely restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
_________________
You couldn’t.
For some incomprehensible reason, you lost your resolve and ability to lead, rejected fundamental law, and entertained, debated with, and counterintuitively succumbed to your slaves and your women.
Be proud.
Communism has been imposed.
Americans are vanishing as a result of the fertility rate which is in a “death spiral.”
The republic you were given is gone—you squandered and frittered it away.
The legacy of the American Founders is extinct.
“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” under the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” commanded by the “intelligentsia,” imposing central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering, will rule the dead nation the Founders established.
George, I fear you are too correct…
I’d say Sotomayor or maybe Jackson is the tattletale.
@Anonymous
Definitely, and my money is on Jackson. This is absurd. If anyone needed any further evidence that our government is a captured entity – sheesh. Wake the hell up, people.
True, if she can’t define what a woman is perhaps she also cannot define what a leak is.
Justice Jackson refused to take the bait from that aging, bottle blondie home-ec major from Tennessee because she was wise enough to know that whatever answer she gave, it would be thrown back in her face in some future case involving transsexualism.
Tell ya what, Tom: why don’t YOU define what a woman is.
A female human, pretty simple.
An adult female. I think my 4th grade daughter can answer that.
Even younger, I’d say.
Wow GiGi
You are something else.
Aging, bottle blondie home ec major from Tennessee.
Let’s see, by your very own standards, you’re practicing elder abuse, cultural appropriation slurs of physical appearance or styles and attempting to denegrate a Congresswoman as if there were something intellectually wrong with home ec teachers, quite racially misogynistic of you. Go to your corner snd think on your sins.
Let’s see, by your very own standards, you’re practicing elder abuse, cultural appropriation slurs of physical appearance or styles
Gigi is the “plaintiff” in her sole practice.
It is especially sad when each of the Democratic suspects appears a likely suspect in egregious breaches of confidentiality. On the one hand Democrats regularly attack the Court and its majority, and on the other they defy the rules of the Court, undermining its operation.
“On the one hand Democrats regularly attack the Court and its majority, and on the other they defy the rules of the Court, undermining its operation.”
Corrupting the jurisprudence. It’s an old schtick.
“Under republican systems of government, the law aims to establish basic rights and responsibilities, and create a level playing field for all citizens (although this ideal is often less than perfectly implemented in practice). But equality before the law was never even an aspiration of Soviet revolutionary jurisprudence. The Bolsheviks did not see the law as a means to adjudicate civil and business disputes, or to dispense justice blindly; they viewed it as a mechanism to implement their social and political agenda. The late Harold J. Berman, one of the foremost scholars of Soviet legal history, noted that the Bolsheviks envisioned Soviet law somewhat as a code of conduct, an instrument used in the early years after the 1917 October Revolution to cajole or compel citizens into adhering to new Socialist norms, as determined by the vanguard of the proletariat, the Communist Party.”
https://eurasianet.org/the-bolsheviks-and-the-law-the-legacy-of-arbitrary-justice
“The long sobs of the violins of autumn wound my heart with a monotonous languor.”
Michael: The public has lost confidence in the SCOTUS because THEY not only defied the rule of stare decisis, several of them LIED about their stance on Roe v. Wade, claiming it was settled law and that they would abide by the rule of stare decisis. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were nominated by a POTUS who LOST the popular vote and cheated to get into office. Most Americans do not believe that the POTUS IS above the law. The SCOTUS does not reflect the values and views of most Americans. They took the unprecedented step of overturning something found to be a right protected by the Constitution, and for these reasons, the American people do not respect or have confidence in the SCOTUS.
Wow
Let me say this again so you can understand. Show me in the Constitution where it discusses the legality of abortion. Aside from the SC finally correcting Roe v Wade, it simply put the matter back to state venue the way it should be. Each state can decide the limits of what they find palatable in the practice of killing babies. Should you wish to kill babies, move to a state that has no issues, otherwise abide by what each state establishes as their own limits over killing babies.
Thank God every day your mother didn’t abort you and you have been blessed with life. It is a gift and it’s yours to enjoy or destroy as you choose.
Look at the bright side, if a SCJ participated in this behavior, they will be impeached. If it’s who logical thought would support, when Trump takes office, boom another conservative on the bench. We will win so much, you will get tired of winning.
CJ Roberts really bungled the Dobbs decision. I had no problem with handing off abortion policy to “the people and their representatives” — it was the awkward, manipulative way that handoff was structured.
Since Roe/Casey had effectively made restrictive laws passed in the red states a vehicle for “virtue signaling without consequences” — the decision in Dobbs to allow “trigger laws” to take effect immediately robbed those states of a public debate of consequence prior to restrictions becoming effective.
A smoother handoff would have declared a grace period for Roe/Casey of 4 years, during which new debate could be undertaken, this time knowing that undesired side effects of legislation would have to be seriously debated. The public deserved this time to deliberate on the policy issue.
That would have required Alito and the majority to repeal ALL abortion law passed in advance to take advantage of a SCOTUS decision, so as to give the people a clean slate to work with. The fact that Alito allowed those trigger laws to go into effect immediately suggested he wanted to bias the outcome of the state-level debates in the policy direction represented by those trigger laws. The Court lost tremendous respect by acting in such an expedient manner, more interested in the result preferred by one faction than a sound process that might receive the support of all, and remove hints of policy prejudice from Dobbs.
“Debating the undesired side effects?” Seriously?
“The court lost tremendous respect”. A. BS and B. it lost that respect with the Roe “decision”. It took courage to stand up to a couple generations of people willing to not debate the undesired side effects and to simply do whatever they felt like with no regard for life, simply and overwhelmingly, for personal convenience.
There was no “4-yr grace period” when Kelo was handed down. Where does 4-yrs come from anyway, the same people that brought you 6-feet for C19?
The labor pool is importing 3rd worlders, no need to pull women from families anymore, btw. We know what the women’s lib movement was for – and the banks are grateful and middle management cubicles are full.
Your suggestion is completely detached from the Supreme Court’s actual role in interpreting and applying the law, including the Constitution. You seem to assume it has some freewheeling legislative powers, which it does not. Its role is to declare the law, not make the law. It has no authority to do the things you suggest. It is not Congress.
The most damaging perception of the Supreme Court comes from two angles. The first is that our legal system, from top to bottom, has been politicized and weaponized. It is obvious and beyond dispute. The second is that The Law itself is a joke, a game played by slick lawyers and black robed mini-tyrants without regard to their responsibility to insure Justice. When The Law no longer exists to protect and preserve Justice it becomes a joke and no longer deserves respect or commands obedience. We are at that point, and we are seeing the consequences.
“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
–Winston Churchill, November 10, 1942.
Activist justices are clearly precisely the reason we must all cease voting for modern democrats simply for self-preservation; it is unthinkable there is someone on the bench willfully feeding these parasites. Upstate, below, is right: nominating more conservative/non-partisan judges in 2024 and beyond will make Kavanaugh look like a picnic, but it’s what we have to do, we can’t waver, that’s what they want. Had Hillary been elected in 2016, the courts would already be packed and we’d have no recourse. For the love of simply *yourself*, do not vote for a single modern dem in November. That party is wholly and completely lost.
And, a clerk? That implies a certain age group. I’ve said it many times, but the woke under 35 are simply not to be trusted with walking your dog or emptying your trash. It is impossible to take them seriously, and giving them positions of even minuscule authority is like giving a toddler a knife – it does not end well, not for anyone, including them. They are too ignorant to see. We are going to have the burden of all societal burdens when these folks are older – it will make the burnouts from the hippy era seem like a light jog. It is coming, it’s too late to reverse it, whether we like it or not.
And for *(&%$ sake, stop thinking that modern young people possess anything resembling insight – they simply don’t, and they sure don’t possess knowledge, which is the first building block to wisdom (but you’d better believe they will be voting in droves); you look like an idiot pretending otherwise. Stop projecting your insecurities and failures and grow the eff up, already. The 90s were over 30 years ago. Time to catch up and grow up. The regression I see in so many people that used to seem to be intelligent and know better is flabbergasting.
Professor Turley has a point. Unfortunately, the country’s rot has gotten to the last institution that maintained our norms.
What are you doing, responding to the column instead of going off with off topic rants? Don’t you know the rules around here? :-}