Category: Courts

Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Free Speech, Media, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

Chief Justice John Roberts Opposes Court Expansion Proposal: A Response

Despite our recent appearance as co-commentators last week, Chief Justice John Roberts has spoken against my proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 19 members. According to the Washington Post, Roberts said that he opposed the proposal and added “Well, I suppose it depends on who gets to pick them.” For prior columns on my proposal, click here, here and here and here. (See also Unpacking the Court: The Case for the Expansion of the United States Supreme Court in the Twenty-First Century.” 33 Perspectives on Political Science, no. 3, p. 155 (June 22, 2004)).

Continue reading “Chief Justice John Roberts Opposes Court Expansion Proposal: A Response” →

Bizarre, Courts, Lawyering, Society

West Virginia Judge Charged With Abusive Conduct Depicted in Courtroom Video

Rev. Arthur D. Hage, 63, has posted the video below as part of his complaint to the state Judicial Investigation Commission about Putnam County Circuit Court Family Law Judge William M. “Chip” Watkins III. It shows Watkins, 58, going ballistic in a divorce case where he screams at Hage, including to tell him to “Shut up” and accusing him of telling a “damn lie.”

Continue reading “West Virginia Judge Charged With Abusive Conduct Depicted in Courtroom Video” →

Constitutional Law, Courts, Supreme Court

Et Tu, Roberts II: Chief Justice Reportedly Switched Sides After Originally Voting To Strike Down The Health Care Law

When many of us were covering the decision from the Supreme Court, one thing that was immediately noted was the the decision of Associate Justice Anton Scalia read like a majority opinion. The opinion not only referred to “the dissent” as if it were the majority opinion (though sometimes justices even in dissent can refer to other dissents). Reports are now indicating that Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the Affordable Care Act. The report is a serious breach in the normally secretive court in its internal deliberations and contains considerable detail showing a hard effort by the Court’s swing justice Anthony Kennedy to convince Kennedy to return to the fold. The report is likely to increase the feeling of betrayal by those who felt that opinion harmed federalism by reaffirming the taxing power as an easy avenue to circumvent state rights. That was the subject of my column the day after the ruling.

Continue reading “Et Tu, Roberts II: Chief Justice Reportedly Switched Sides After Originally Voting To Strike Down The Health Care Law” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, International, Justice, Military, Politics, Things That Tick Me Off

Georgia On My Mind

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger

With apologies to the writers of the famous song by the same title, I came across a small news item that didn’t make the big headlines this past week.  Our friends in Georgia just don’t seem to get the idea that their citizen soldiers deserve the same right to vote that on military members enjoy.  In the upcoming primary elections and general election cycle, Georgia has violated the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) by not providing military members the minimum amount of time between elections in order to assure that their absentee ballots arrive in time to actually be counted in the respective elections.  At least the Justice Department thinks Georgia does not have the military on its mind! Continue reading “Georgia On My Mind” →

Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts

Et tu, Roberts? Federalism Falls By The Hand Of A Friend

Below is today’s column in USA Today on the health care decision. Though I support President Obama’s effort to establish health care, I have always opposed the individual mandate as a violation of federalism principles. What is fascinating is how some challengers have heralded yesterday’s decision as a victory of federalism. As shown below, I do not take that view.

Continue reading “Et tu, Roberts? Federalism Falls By The Hand Of A Friend” →

Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Justice, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

A Bigger and Better Supreme Court

Below is my column in today’s Guardian newspaper — a further discussion of my proposal to expand the Supreme Court. While overlapping a bit with the column on Sunday in the Washington Post, the piece adds a few new details on the proposal that I first made over ten years ago.

Continue reading “A Bigger and Better Supreme Court” →

Academia, Bizarre, Courts, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

The Limits of Civility: How A Proposal On Reforming The Supreme Court Unleashed A Torrent Of Personal Attacks

As many on this blog know, I rarely respond to criticism of columns that I run in USA Today or other newspapers. As a columnist, I feel that I am given a rare opportunity to express my views and criticism comes with the territory. However, I was taken aback by many of the comments in response to my Sunday column in The Washington Post discussing my proposal for the expansion of the United States Supreme Court. Though the proposal was given serious and supportive reviews by some sites like Forbes, some conservatives immediately assumed that I was a liberal simply upset with the anticipated ruling striking down the individual mandate provision of the health care law. When another law professor and blogger (Ann Althouse) joined this ill-informed and uncivil chorus, I thought I would respond. This blog has always strived to maintain a strict civility rule — distinguishing it from many other blogs by discouraging and sometimes eliminating ad hominem and personal attacks. Yet, I am still surprised by the lack of civility and responsibility by many — particularly fellow lawyers and academics — in responding to such proposals. [Update: Professor Ann Althouse has responded to my call for greater civility with a new blog entitled “Jonathan Turley’s civility bullshit about my calling ‘bullshit’ on his Court-packing plan.” Notably, Professor Althouse does not address the fact that she was completely wrong in claiming that I was motivated by dislike for the anticipated ruling striking down the individual mandate in the health care case. (Apparently both civility and factual accuracy fall into the same “BS” category for Professor Althouse).]

Continue reading “The Limits of Civility: How A Proposal On Reforming The Supreme Court Unleashed A Torrent Of Personal Attacks” →

Academia, Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, International, Justice, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

The Nineteen Member Court: The Case For Expanding The United States Supreme Court

Below is today’s column in The Washington Post Sunday Outlook. Due to the normal space restraints, the original article had to be cut down. Given the high number of comments and questions about the proposal (which I first made years ago) for the expansion of the Supreme Court, I have posted the longer, original piece. That longer version addresses some of the questions raised by readers.

Continue reading “The Nineteen Member Court: The Case For Expanding The United States Supreme Court” →

Academia, Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

Is The Supreme Court Too Small? A Proposal For The Expansion Of The United States Supreme Court

The Washington Post has posted my column for Sunday on expanding the Supreme Court. Due to space limitations, the original piece had to be cut back significantly, so below is the longer column. I will post the actual column on Sunday.

Continue reading “Is The Supreme Court Too Small? A Proposal For The Expansion Of The United States Supreme Court” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Politics, Society

Deliberative or Evasive? Obama Asserts Privilege Over “Fast and Furious”

President Barack Obama today asserted executive privilege over documents long sought by Congress in the investigation of the “Fast and Furious” operation. The assertion in my view is facially overbroad and excessive. It is the latest example of sweeping claims of executive power and privilege by this Administration. Congress has ample reason to investigate this operation, which involves alleged criminal acts that may have resulted in the death of third parties, including a U.S. agent. The Justice Department is accused of complicity in one of the most ill-conceived and harmful operations in recent years. The very officials and agency accused of wrongdoing is claiming that it can withhold documents from a committee with oversight responsibilities.

Continue reading “Deliberative or Evasive? Obama Asserts Privilege Over “Fast and Furious”” →

Bizarre, Courts, Criminal law, Lawyering

Missouri Judge Accused Of Allowing Clerks To Dismiss Cases and Issue Orders While She Vacationed In China

Associate Circuit Judge Barbara T. Peebles is under investigation for allegedly allowing her clerks to handle litigation matters as she vacationed in China last year. To make matters worse, there is a criminal investigation into the disappearance of a document related to the vacation. In the meantime, another judge, Margaret J. Walsh resigned after allegations that she ordered the handcuffing of an assistant city counselor and used inappropriate or abusive language as well as allegedly attempting to influence city officials when her son was rejected for a job.

Continue reading “Missouri Judge Accused Of Allowing Clerks To Dismiss Cases and Issue Orders While She Vacationed In China” →

Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, International, Media, Politics

Obama Administration Declares It Will Not Deport Young Illegal Immigrants

The Obama Administration again waited for a Friday afternoon to announce a major new policy change — repeating its practice of timing important announcements to reduce media and public attention. The latest change is obviously controversial. The Administration will no longer deport illegal aliens under 30 who came to this country as children — effectively negating part of the federal law. It raises some troubling questions, again, about President Obama assertion of executive power. While liberals again celebrate the unilateral action, they ignore that danger that the next president may also simply chose to ignore whole areas of the federal law and criminal code in areas ranging from the environment to employment discrimination. It is one more brick in the wall of the Imperial Presidency constructed under Barack Obama — a wall that may prove difficult to dismantle for citizens in the future.

Continue reading “Obama Administration Declares It Will Not Deport Young Illegal Immigrants” →

Academia, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Free Speech, Justice, Media, Military, Politics, Religion, Society, Supreme Court

The Slippery Slope

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

My father had a favorite saying with which was to excoriate me on the many occasions when I had misbehaved. “The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions”. He used this to chastise me for some bad behavior, but more importantly to give me guidance of the “slippery-slope” that I was on when I behaved badly. Although it’s been 50 years since his death his words have remained with me even though I’ve aged into a man who’s lived far longer than he had. It’s been my observation that there is truth to this cliche, yet it does represent a form of logic, the “slippery-slope”, which can often also be specious. When I read this New York Times Article: “Slippery-Slope Logic, Applied to Health Care” by Economist Richard H. Thaler, Published: May 12, 2012http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/business/economy/slippery-slope-logic-vs-health-care-law-economic-view.html , I was again reminded of my Father’s admonitions and began to think about the use of “slippery-slope” logic. As it relates to SCOTUS and health care Mr. Thaler’s critique of the “slippery-slope” logic being applied by Justice Scalia did ring true:

“Consider these now-famous comments about broccoli from Justice Antonin G. Scalia during the oral arguments. “Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food,” he said. “Therefore, everybody is in the market. Therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.” ”

 “Justice Scalia is arguing that if the court lets Congress create a mandate to buy health insurance, nothing could stop Congress from passing laws requiring everyone to buy broccoli and to join a gym.”

 “Please stop! The very fact that a slippery slope is being cited as grounds for declaring the law unconstitutional — despite that “significant deference” usually given to laws passed by Congress — tells you all that you need to know about the argument’s validity. Can anyone imagine Congress passing a broccoli mandate law, much less the court allowing it to take effect?”

These are excepts from Mr. Thaler’s article. His short column is well worth reading for his examples of the problem with “slippery-slope” logic. My piece though, is neither about health care, nor SCOTUS. I’d like to explore the question of the validity of “slippery-slope” arguments that have been commonly used in public discourse and whether we would be better off as a society if we ignored them. Continue reading “The Slippery Slope” →

Academia, Courts, Environment, Free Speech, Justice, Media, Politics

The Pursuit of Political Purity

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

ImageSome comments in the ongoing debate regarding the candidacy of Elizabeth Warren got me to thinking about our political system and people’s reactions to it. Warren is criticized by the Right for obvious reasons, given her strong stances on managing the economy and controlling the excesses of the Corporate Culture. In a sense she offends their sense of political purity, but then that is but a given because she is a Democrat. We have seen though on the Right that such conservative stalwarts as Richard Lugar have gone down to primary defeat because he failed the Tea Parties test of what a “true” conservative should be. Richard Lugar failed the “purity” test even though his conservative history is impeccable. In my conception political purity conforms to “party line” thinking, punishing those that fail to adhere in all respects to the standards of a given faction’s concept of standards their candidates must adhere to in order to retain enthusiastic support. I use “faction”, rather than “party”, because our two party political system actually represents an amalgam of various factions imperfectly coalescing under the rubric of a “Political Party”.

From a Left, or even Centrist perspective, there has been both amusement and trepidation about how the “Tea Party” faction has exerted control over the Republican Party. Then too, there is the same reaction to the power exerted by Fundamentalist Christians, a group that at some points overlaps with the “Tea Party”. A human trait is to see the foibles of groups we define as “other”, while being oblivious to the idiosyncrasies of the groups we are aligned with. Liberals, Progressives, Radicals and even Leftist Centrists like to believe that they are immune from the turmoil that they see in their Right Wing opposites, yet the “Left” and even the “Center” also routinely define people in terms of litmus tests of political purity. This was highlighted by certain comments on the Warren thread where people who were seemingly in tune with her domestic policy views, disliked her positions on the Middle East and appeared to hold them against her. This has definitely been true with many progressives and/or civil libertarians in viewing this current Administration. My purpose here is not one of castigation for anyone’s perspective; rather I’m interested in exploring the phenomenon of the belief that political figures need to meet all of our expectations in their positions, or be unworthy of our support. My own perspective is that tests of political purity are self defeating because it is impossible for any particular political figure to be in perfect agreement with all that any of us individually believe and politics becomes oppression without the ability to negotiate. The process of real negotiation requires compromise. What follows is why I believe that is true. Continue reading “The Pursuit of Political Purity” →