July 1, 2009

"The arrival of a neophyte justice coupled with Chief Justice Roberts’s increasing mastery of the judicial machinery..."

"... foreshadow a widening gap between the Democratic-led political branches and the Supreme Court. Indeed, the court appears poised to move to the right in the Obama era."

Liptak tacks left. Or, uh, the Court tacks right. John Roberts is a big right winger. Just look — look! — at all that incremental minimalism he's insidiously inflicting on us with the assistance of the mushily malleable Anthony Kennedy, that infuriatingly enigmatic Justice whom the smiling villain Roberts controls in ways that neophyte Sonia Sotomayor will never understand.

33 comments:

rhhardin said...

What NYT piece did I notice just this morning... In ruling against New Haven, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to diversity in the American workplace, an editorial gloss that I glossed ``close analysis.''

Aaron said...

i like the part when they say:

> Justices Scalia and Thomas are apt to follow what they understand to be the original meaning of the Constitution, even when the consequences might not align with their policy preferences.

Weird. How do they know what Scalia's and Thomas' policy preferences are? And isn't there another word for this: reading the law, rather than making the law. Love or hate these guys, agree or disagree with their decisions, but its getting kind of hard to call them political. more like they call it like they see it.

section9 said...

Foolish Althouse!

You didn't know that Roberts is a mere padwan under the control of the Sith Lord, Darth Scalia?

Feh! Roberts is sent for coffee and bagels while Scalia writes the opinions!

The Triumph of Textualism!!!!

MadisonMan said...

Reading this, I was reminded of a similar legal analysis from 2 or 3 years ago that predicted more 9-0 cases because (?) Well, my memory fails me on why there would be more 9-0 cases, but it seems like there aren't many.

My point being that legal analyses like this one don't have a good history of prediction.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Weird. How do they know what Scalia's and Thomas' policy preferences are?

They don't need to 'know' they just project and extrapolate. Same way the uber liberal posters on this forum seem to be able to read our minds, know who we voted for and what our thoughts are on various political and social issues.

I love the way that they think they know what conservatives think and they are so very very wrong.

It's all about projecting your own paranoid fantasies on other people.

aberman said...

I don't think Liptak is paranoid. John Roberts argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court before he became a judge. He was supposedly very successful.

former law student said...

WASPs beware: it's the revenge of the mackerel snappers. Big families, lotsa pasta, and more garlic are in your future.

vnjagvet said...

In Liptak's world, failure to drift left is a move to the right. That analysis is similar to the argument that a failure to increase the budget for a federal program is a "cut" in the program.

Aaron said...

Former

Wow, that was actually bigoted.

But i have stopped being surprised.

Patrick said...

I'm glad Ann still reads this kind of shite so I know its there without going to the trouble myself.

You are very brave Ann, I salute you!

Chase said...

Liptak - and the New York Times - are aware that "the Justices read the papers, too".

This is a shot at Justice Kennedy, taunting his weakness at being rolled over by the Chief Justice. Perhaps a new continued effort by the left, a new meme that constantly says Kennedy is p-whipped will cause him some inner humiliation so that he starts ruling differently.

Watch for this new push about "Kennedy being ruled by Roberts" to show up in left-leaning blogs and on the talk shows over the next 6 months.

Aaron said...

The problem with that is that Kennedy might react the other way. he might see this as an attempt to manipulate him and push back and be even more like Roberts.

Balfegor said...

neophyte Sonia Sotomayor


Hasn't she been a judge for something like a decade or more longer than Roberts has? I thought Roberts was nominated by Bush II, to his first judicial post, whereas Sotomayor was nominated way back by Bush I. She's not that much of a neophyte.

Chase said...

Aaron, from your keyboard to God's ears.

Madison Man - you are spot on.

Juris Dentist said...

Your lame, envy-induced caricature of this article is not a substitute for actual argument. But it does serve to demonstrate why nobody has chosen to pay you for your opinions about the court.

Diamondhead said...

There's always an insidious force to blame for things not turning out how liberals want.

Chase said...

But it does serve to demonstrate why nobody has chosen to pay you for your opinions about the court.


If Adam Liptak had to sell his stuff directly to the public - instead of through a "news"-paper that only hired and publishes him because it agrees with his partisan views - he would starve to death.

Therefore this court remands your not-very-well-thought-out-point back to you for reconsideration of your own vapidity.

former law student said...

Wow, that was actually bigoted.

You'll wish you had paid attention to me later, when the Court approves vouchers in the exact amount of Catholic school tuition, crucifixes are installed in all government buildings, you have to bless yourself from the holy water font each time you leave a post office, and, when you visit a steakhouse on Friday, your waiter presents the bare choice, "Ahi or salmon, sir?"

f1b0nacc1 said...

FLS,

Perhaps you and Ceaderford should get together...I understand that there is a bulk discount on white sheets...

Richard Dolan said...

"Widening gap," is it? Well, there's a solution for that. Perhaps in the next election or two, the voters will even adopt it. To prevent that will be the goal of much that the NYT will publish from now till then.

Unraveling the craftiness of CJ Roberts obviously calls for the sharp eye of the NYT "analyst." But why is it that, in the Times, 'news analysis' is always all politics, all the time and always of the same sort? That's what it must be like to live in a one-dimensional world -- like a slug crawling along a Mobius strip, the NYT analyst always ends up where he started from, especially when the topic is those crafty rightwingers doing their slippery work.

former law student said...

I understand that there is a bulk discount on white sheets...

When C-Span is replaced by EWTN, when Congress's day starts with a decade of the rosary, when judicial opinions are once more written in Latin -- then you'll wish you'd listened.

I won't be here at the end of the week -- got to start the nine First Fridays.

Patrick said...

FLS, what happened? I assume you didn't just lose your mind/sense of humou (whichever it is) overnight?

Also, how many of them are Ritals, exactly? Two by my count? Roberts and Kennedy are just smarter WASPS, and I'm fairly confident that Thomas is not from anywhere in Europe or the Mediterannean full stop. Nor Sotomayor, for that matter.

former law student said...

FLS, what happened?

I was trying to be jokey, and failed miserably, even though I tried to say more and more ridiculous things.

The term "mackerel snapper" just popped into my head. I think that is the funniest slur for anything.

Aaron said...

Former

Dude, take your meds.

They are not going to impose an official religion of catholicism.

but hey you already proved to be a racist, sexism, and anti-disability bigot. why should any of this surprise us coming from you?

Although i would be perfectly happy to see vouchers. Or how about this instead. just as disabled students are guaranteed a right to a free appropriate education, we should say all students are guaranteed that right. under the IDEA when a school is failing a disabled student the parents can take their kid out, send him to a public school and then foot the school district for the bill. So why not do that for all students? if your school is filled with a bunch of idiot teachers protected by tenure, we can take our kids out and send them to a school where they actually teach. sound like a plan?

i know libs pee their pants at the thought that parents might then send their kids to parochial schools, but um, tough. its no different than giving a state employee the salary they earned knowing that a significant portion of that money would go to religious institutions.

jayne_cobb said...

Ah, the dangers of online humor.

Patrick said...

So it was the humour lost. Don't worry, happens to the best of us.

Probably an indictment on the standards of commenting - I knew it was out of character for you but I couldn't see any obvious sign it was a joke. cf Cedarford, Juris Doctor, but there are plenty others around the traps.

See the original article while we are at it. I wonder if he would dare be alone with the 'neophyte' in a dark alley, now...

Aaron said...

Former

Oh, so you aren't a knuckle dragging bigot. you were just kidding.

um, sorry, not letting you off the hook so fast. you have said similar stuff about so many other groups, nope, not buying it.

Jeremy said...

Ann - "John Roberts is a big right winger."

Finally you get something right.

Jeremy said...

Diamondhead said..."There's always an insidious force to blame for things not turning out how liberals want."

Yeah, if only we could quell that silly "socialism" and "communism" everybody keeps howling about.

Pot/Kettle.

Alex said...

Now watch Althouse get slammed for being a right-winger. Just you see.

Balfegor said...

Roberts and Kennedy are just smarter WASPS

Look, when you're counting Catholics as White Anglo-Saxon Protestants something has gone terribly wrong. There's only one WASP on the court now, and his name is John Paul Stevens. You can tell because he wears a bowtie. No monocle, though.

Balfegor said...

Sorry, I guess Souter hasn't actually left. He's pretty WASPy too.

Steven said...

Well, see, the gap will be widening until November 2010. Then the Republican takeover of Congress will simply isolate Obama. Obama will then have a stark choice between becoming Carter II or Clinton II.