October 3, 2011
The Supreme Court begins its new term — "widely expected to be one of the most exciting and important Terms in recent memory."
That prediction of thrills and spills comes from Joshua Matz at SCOTUSblog, who links to lots of the mainstream press previews. I'll read a few of them and do separate posts if anything jumps out at me. For now, and to get this blog rolling on a Monday morning, I'll just say that an exciting Supreme Court adds an element of danger to the presidential campaigns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
Isn't it interesting that losing court cases, tends to be better politically, than winning them?
Firing up the base and all that...
It is going to be a fun election cycle.
"Exciting Supreme Court term" is not a phrase that fills me with joy.
Danger? Mostly to the incumbent, no?
Meade, get Ann some coffee--so she can fire up the blog on a Monday!
What is legal and what is not?
Only five of the nine Philosopher Kings and Queens can tell us.
This is the only Monarchy loophole that slipped around the framers of the Constitution. John Marshall said it is so.
So we live in a constitutional Republic of elected representatives that can be vetoed when needed by the Monarchy of Five.
In my experience it is harder to fool 12 jurors. Much harder than it is to call in political markers on 5 Judges who can hide their acts behind respect for legal authority.
I think you have the causation reversed, the potential danger to the presidential campaigns is precisely what makes this term of the S.Ct. exciting.
Danger is one of the key triggers of excitement.
I've never seen a pre-term assessment say it's going to be the least interesting Term ever. Why is that?
And an element of-- conspiracy theory?? . . .
Are they revisiting KELO?
Are the Supremes "political actors" within the meaning of Ann's 'conspiracy', infra, and Article 3, section 4, clause 6 of the Constitution? Only Carol knows.
Will Sotomayor recuse herself? Yes, if she's a wise latina. No te creas.
Only Carol knows...
Where to pick up nearly indestructible buckycarbon brackets and springs for her ENTER key. Necessary, as it takes a Rodney King-level beating.
I have some misgivings about the SCOTUS granting cert on the democrat health care plan during an election cycle. My position would be let it go until the following session. This is a matter best left to political processes which will include (I hope) a solid republican congress which can repeal. But thats just my take--as always YMMV
ricpic--I thought it was justice Kagan that was present at the creation of the health care plan.
This is a matter best left to political processes which will include (I hope) a solid republican congress which can repeal.
The interesting question, should they decide the case against the administration some time next summer, is two-fold. Does the liberal base collapse in disappointment and stay home or do they rally at the polls? Does the conservative base loose the wind in its sails perceiving a victory or do they take it as a sign of POTUS' impending doom and redouble their efforts to keep him to one term?
ScottM--your reasoning is precisely why I think reviewing health care legislation is unwise in an election cycle. And I suspect a decision wont be published until June, well into the election cycle when we will have a pretty good idea of who the candidates will be.
Ferris wheels are exciting. The Super Bowl is exciting. Fast cars and hot loose women are exciting.
Supreme Court terms can be lots of things, but exciting ain't one of them.
Have to disagree with The Drill SGT; the base only gets fired up on the Left since court edicts are about all they have; they can't count on the ballot box outside major urban areas and even that may be playing them false these days.
My mistake, Roger J. Kagan not Sotomayor.
I don't want to live in interesting times.....or have an exciting Supreme Court.
Watching all of the ginned up unrest in NYC and the class warfare being drummed up by the Democrats.....I just get the feeling that none of this is going to turn out well.
I don't want to live in interesting times
This is the difference between being twenty-something with a head full of piss 'n vinegar, versus being forty-something with four kids and a mortgage.
The Supreme Court should not be about exciting. It should be about nerdish interpretations of law, not making new law, not breaking new ground, but interpreting complex issues. The exciting stuff should be taking place in the Congress and White House. If there is too much excitement going on at SCOTS, that is an indication that something is wrong.
Either that or Justice Ginsberg has broken into Justice Scalia's stash of wine again.
Surprised no one's taking any longevity tests on Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
You just never know what "excitement" can be in an old-age home.
Almost Ali said...
Are they revisiting KELO?
Why would they want to revisit Kelo? That place is a dump. Literally.
I saw footage this morning of the Supremes emerging from their annual Mass at the National Cathedral. To be honest, I had no idea that they did that every year, since it seems like the sort of thing that would make ACLU "separation of church and state" activists soil themselves. How many more years do you figure that lasts?
I've never seen a pre-term assessment say it's going to be the least interesting Term ever. Why is that?
Ratings.
In my experience it is harder to fool 12 jurors.
Spoken by someone who obviously does not live in Los Angeles.
Every term is important as our congress tries to imprison us with rules to control every aspect of our lives.
Post a Comment