Studying the Supremes

Campus Report ^ | July 14, 2008 | Emily Miller

[bs9021]

Studying the Supremes

Emily Miller, July 14, 2008

The media is quick to paint Chief Justice John Roberts’ Supreme Court into an ideological corner, tagging it conservative or liberal, minimalist or imperialist, unified or deeply fractured. But these overarching broad analyses reported by the press are often inaccurate, says Dahlia Lithwick, scrutinizing the Supreme Court’s 2007-8 term in a panel discussion hosted by the Heritage Foundation.

Anyone who attempts to make broad conclusions about the Court’s political leaning, or predicts which way the justices will vote, does so in the way of an “optical illusion.” Lithwick explains that it involves two tricks: 1) extrapolate the 67 cases heard by the Supreme Court this year into sounding like 365 cases, or 2) ignore half of the cases ruled on.

“I think you have to be very, very careful when you’re talking about a handful of cases,” Lithwick says, noting that in 2007-8 the Court ruled on only 67 cases, the lowest number in modern history.

One particular news item Lithwick honed in on at the panel discussion was an article in The New Republic called “Narrow Minded” in which the author asserted Roberts “succeeded impressively” at “promot[ing] unanimity and collegiality” on the Court. But Lithwick says anyone who presumes the Roberts Court is characterized by “a new era of good feeling and unanimity” is misleading the public. In order to make such an analysis “you have to sort of put your hand over half the cases, all the cases that were not decided that way, but were, in fact, fractious and angry.”

She points to cases that had close 5-4 rulings to prove her point, like Boumediene v. Bush—which extended habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo Bay detainees—the DC v. Heller handgun case, and the Louisiana child rape case Kennedy v. Louisiana...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Interesting post.

[thefactor]

oops, wrong Supremes.

[Congressman Billybob]

There is some value in studying the Supremes. There is more value, however, in studying the document they are sworn to respect and uphold, the US Constitution.

I was taught in law school that the Constitution is what the Justices say it is. I had to learn on my own that the opposite is true. The Constitution is what it says, even when a majority of the Supremes get it dead wrong.

Congressman Billybob

First three in the series, "American Government: The Owner's Manual" are here, and also on FR

Latest article, "Smart as a Whip, Dumb as a Hoe Handle"