Apparently Arlen Specter isn’t particularly happy with the recent Stare Decisis-related performances of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. I’m not exactly sure what he wants to do about it, but it looks like he just wants to take a look at past decisions and remarks from the two Justices and decide whether or not they had honored the public and private agreements they made during their respective confirmation hearings.

He claims that he got the idea from Justice Breyer when they meet recently at a convention. Justice Breyer has been one of the most vocal opponents of the newly formed conservative voting block on the court but I don’t think he wants Specter to go back and ‘investigate’ two of his colleagues. I put ‘investigate’ in quotation marks because the whole notion of a Senator looking into a Justice’s judicial philosophy is rather baseless. This is a classic example of Congressional showboating- an action that means nothing but puts on a show that will appeal to the misinformed constituency. Regardless of what he ‘finds,’ there isn’t a whole lot a Senator can do to a Supreme Court Justice save for pushing for impeachment.

According to Specter, Breyer had mentioned that there were eight cases in which the conservative majority flaunted precedent. If I had to guess which those were, I would say Carhart, Wisconsin Right to Life, Parents Involved, Leegin, and Morse are definitely five of the eight cases that make Breyer’s list. The last three could be any number of cases, but my list would include National Defenders of Wildlife, Bowles, and Ayers.

Ledbetter and Hein were probably the most high-profile conservative wins that would be considered new questions enough that the conservative ruling, even though cutting back on trends, is not a violation of ‘stare decisis.’

Maybe Specter rediscovered his wonderful ‘contempt of Congress’ privileges and wants to hold two Justices of the United States Supreme Court in contempt of Congress for…being mean? being conservative? evolving as Justices? If I were to list the top 5 things that I don’t ever want to experience, being in contempt of Congress would surely make the list. A recently released report by the Congressional Research Service entitled “Congress’s Contempt Power: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure” only reaffirmed this mortal fear of mine so I thought I would do my best to spread the word about Congress’s dictatorial powers.

2 Responses to “Sorry Arlen, But You Can’t Return Supreme Court Justices”

  1. 1 Jeremy Pierce

    I was under the impression that this wasn’t supposed to have any effect on the current makeup of the Supreme Court but rather, consistent with Senator Schumer’s recent posturings, was supposed to have an impact on future hearings. I’m sure Specter isn’t going to go as far as Schumer, who seems to want to vote no on any nominee who won’t be forthcoming about how to vote in potential cases not yet heard, but given the timing it’s got to be along similar lines about how hearings will be conducted in the future and how easily senators should confirm presidential nominees.

  1. 1 SCOTUSblog

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Random Posts

  • Supreme Court Releases Four Opinions; Ten Remain: The Supreme Court released four divided opinions today including a very interesting case rejecting an inmate's right to test the DNA used to...
  • January Hearing List Released: The Supreme Court has released the Hearing List for the January sitting and you can find it here. Several high-profile advocates are back...
  • A Classic Oral Argument Passage: Today's New York Times article about Paul Clement, "Lawyer Opposing Health Law is Familiar Face to the Justices", reminds me of an interesti...
  • Traitors to the Cause: 6-3 decisions are, statistically speaking, the least common vote split. Frequently, those cases split along the ideological lines that are s...
  • More Sophisticated Reconferencing Statistics: A commentator on my last conferencing post picked up on an important part of the distribution question that I had intentionally omitted....