Tag Archives: o’connor

Alito, Kennedy, Gays

Posted on by

Here’s an interesting post touching on Alito, gay rights, and Kennedy becoming the new swing justice. See the comments as well. Of course, Kennedy’s becoming the swing vote merely means that the Court will move to the right, not that Kennedy will move to the left, but Balkin notes that Kennedy “supports gay rights claims a bit more than O’Connor.” One of the commenters notes that in Lawrence, O’Connor’s concurrence was limited to the issue of equal protection, whereas Kennedy’s majority opinion was broader, focusing on due process and liberty while also incorporating O’Connor’s equal protection argument.

Another commenter thinks that Chief Justice Roberts might be a swing vote on gay rights.

Finally, here’s a piece on Alito and a couple of gay harrassment cases.

Thoughts on Alito

Posted on by

Get used to saying “Scalia, Alito” rapidly, as in, “Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas,” who will be voting closely together in lots of cases.

Fortunately, there are still five pretty solid votes on the Court for the area I care most about, gay rights – Stevens, Kennedy (who wrote Lawrence and Romer), Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Now that O’Connor’s presumably gone, I think Kennedy’s going to become the new swing vote. Also interesting and still semi-applicable: this SCOTUSblog article from June about a possible “gang of three” – just replace “Rehnquist” with “Alito” in the following excerpt:

On a Court somewhat more conservative without O’Connor, Kennedy’s influence seems sure to grow. He has a chance to become the new balance wheel, a role that was filled so routinely by O’Connor. (Even if there were to form a solid Rehnquist-Scalia-Thomas-Roberts phalanx, they would still need Kennedy to prevail, and he would not be with such a quartet automatically.) Kennedy also has more influence than is sometimes credited to him. He has a store of common sense that saves him from ideological rigidity, and that steers him away from agenda-driven voting. He has an even deeper sense of what history asks of the few who become members of the Court. Those are summonses to the use of sound judgment.

As I’ve said recently, despite my relatively liberal social views, my judicial views have been in flux lately. Alito seems not be an ideologue or an asshole like Scalia, which is good. I prefer him to someone like Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen. (And hey – go, New Jersey, with two out of nine seats!)

The Harriet Miers nomination was bad for the Court as an institution. The Alito nomination is good for the Court, regardless of how good or bad it turns out to be for the country.

The Krauthammer Compromise

Posted on by

From Miers’s withdrawal letter:

As you know, members of the Senate have indicated their intention to seek documents about my service in the White House…

Repeatedly in the course of the process of confirmation for nominees for other positions, I have steadfastly maintained that the independence of the Executive Branch be preserved and its confidential documents and information not be released to further a confirmation process. I feel compelled to adhere to this position, especially related to my own nomination… I have decided that seeking my confirmation should yield.

From the White House statement in response:

It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a President’s ability to receive candid counsel.

Wow. The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer couldn’t have scripted it any better. But he didn’t have to – this is exactly how he scripted it last Friday, and the White House was listening:

Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.

For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information — “policy documents” and “legal analysis” — from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.

That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive’s prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers’s putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Faces saved. And we start again.

Bush was clearly laying the groundwork for this the other day:

When George W. Bush was asked this morning about a report that the White House is thinking through contingency plans for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers’ nomination, he responded with what we thought was a non sequitur: Rather than confirming or denying the report, the president said that he will refuse to release documents reflecting the advice Miers has given him as a member of his White House staff.

It wasn’t an answer to the question he was asked, but… maybe it wasn’t quite the non sequitur we thought it was, either…

At his Cabinet meeting this morning, the president all but blurted out that he wouldn’t and couldn’t turn over such documents without jeopardizing the ability of future presidents to hear frank advice and “to make sound decisions.”

And like clockwork, the mainstream press is now reporting that a “document snag” is threatening to “scuttle” Miers’ nomination. Maybe this is all just coincidence. Maybe Krauthammer was tipped off to a plan already in the works. Or maybe, with Karl Rove distracted by other matters, the president is taking advice from wherever he can find it.

So, there we go – the Krauthammer Compromise. Miers is gone. Her name will never sully the Court.

I wonder who’s next.

Poor O’Connor – she was really hoping to be living it up in Arizona by now, wasn’t she?