Roberts Court Plays Well with Others
Justice Stephen Breyer is happy with how the newly formed Roberts Court is getting along.
"One thing that won't change is that we've all gotten along very well personally, no matter the outcome of cases," Breyer said. "My belief is we will continue to get along personally. As far as personal dynamics, the court works as well as ever."He is also pleased with the increased amount of debate between the Justices. This may be one of the important style differences between Chief Justice Roberts and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Rehnquist prided himself in running the Justices' conferences (where they discuss the cases and vote) in an orderly fashion. While this was highly efficient, it had its problems. Justice Stevens believed that they never really discussed the case, just staked out positions. Maybe Chief Justice Roberts sees additional debate and discussion as an opportunity to persuade his fellow Justices, form stronger coalitions, and produce more unanimous decisions. With Roberts' intellect, charm, and humor, he may turn out to be a kind of judicial snake charmer. So far, Chief Justice Roberts has definitely lived up to his hype.
I disagree. Discussions are not a waste of time for a judicial body. They can result in important changes in how the role of the Court itself is viewed by the Justices. That, in result, affects the kind of rulings they hand down.
Of course there are instances where the Justice's minds are made up on an issue. I'm not saying that Roberts is going to convince Ginsburg to overturn Roe.
However, look at this term's Ayotte v Planned Parenthood. There, in a unanimous decision, the Court directed the lower appeals court to look at the abortion law in question much more narrowly. The Court seems to be resisting facial challenges to abortion laws (in the past, they might've just struck the whole thing down). This Court is looking to make more narrow invalidations of specific applications of the law.
Think of it as using a surgeon's scalpel instead of an ax. The Court will say "this specific 'as applied' challenge is an undue burden" but they won't invalidate the entire law. If the trend holds, it could be an important change in the Roberts Court.
A viewpoint like this is one that could only be arrived at via discussion. It's not the simple "thumbs up-thumbs down" vote. It's a focused examination.
I don't think that Roberts will persuade the other Justices away from strong ideological beliefs. However, he can persuade their decisions to be more focused. That, in effect, will temper some of those strong ideological beliefs.
Posted by
Steve |
5:10 PM