First, here is Justice Thomas -- in a four page PDF, complaining that the Supremes didn't vote to take the twin cases (only four votes are required to place a case on the docket for ultimate argument -- Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said they wanted to take these cases). There is no published opinion denying certiorari -- just the fact of denial. Since it takes four, it seems Thomas was unable to attract the votes of the Chief Justice -- Roberts (no surprise there, per my comment of yesterday). But he was also unable to persuade. . . (what is widely presumed to be his fellow traveler) Kavanaugh.
Some conservative watchers have suggested that Kavanaugh didn't want to weigh in at all (preposterously, I think), since he hadn't fully prepped (by reading. . . the petitions?!), or. . . because he didn't want his first appearance to be that of a anti-abortion activist Justice. I think that's a canard. [I think Kavanaugh will happily vote to take a case that challenges Roe v. Wade.]
No, I think he didn't vote to take the case. . . precisely because deciding it. . . will not help overturn Roe. That is, to reach the merits of these supposed 1983 private right of action cases, the Justices will have to expand, not contract -- the federal right to sue for damages, when a core principle in the Constitution is. . . violated. That, for the ideologue Kavanaugh, is a bridge too far. He won't want to go about creating NEW federal rights to sue, in order to get at what he sees as the wrongly-decided Roe case. And these cases don't advantageously-frame his desired "definitive" debate -- on right to life / abortion rights, in any event. So, he decided to wait -- and hope for a better case, to bubble up. He and Gorsuch are both relative youngsters, in Court years, so they can wait.
That's my "expanded thoughts" take. But as I close, I will quote Thomas, in dissent, just to show he no longer is anything other than a naked activist -- willing to trample judicial parsimony, in order to get at a political goal he wants to achieve:
. . . .So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here? [Editorial comment: I gather Thomas thinks that "job" is activism, for a particular would-be religious ideology. Disgusting.] I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named “Planned Parenthood". . . .
His above comment is preposterous, on its face. This is. . . odious, naked politicking -- in the Supreme Court record. Justice Thomas beclowns himself (again).
More and more, I honestly believe, for all his other faults, the Chief Justice is mortified by such debasements -- of the Court he now presides over. Oddly, Roberts now is likely the swing vote on many issues (i.e., the new Kennedy). And while that clearly portends a shift rightward, in the Court, I do think Roberts thinks more and more of his legacy -- as he speaks out forcefully against 45's nonsense about supposed "Obama judges".
The Chief may yet surprise us, with some true conservatism -- doing less when less is. . . warranted. Onward, smiling right back, at this clear morning. . . .
नमस्ते
2 comments:
Interesting take. I offered the same thought to my son (who is a lawyer); that Kavanaugh is waiting on a more direct attack. His take 'we will see.'
Hilarious! Classic lawyer's answer. But he is, of course correct.
Waiting will indeed tell us. But where is the... fun in that, I ask you?
It is more fun to think of it as a very long hand of poker... and guess at the hold cards, all while we wait to see which cards next are dealt, face up.
That women's right to control their own bodies might hang in the balance is truly a Orwellian sub-plot here -- that perhaps means I ought not make light of it.
I still believe -- if/when push comes to shove -- on a case squarely presenting the Roe v. Wade question. . . Chief Justice Roberts will find a way to join the Notorious RBG, Kagan and Sotomayor, along with Breyer.
And thus, Roe will remain good law.
Namaste. . . .
Post a Comment