Posted on 06/28/2018 9:33:58 PM PDT by lowbuck
Years ago, when I was a young lawyer, I had an interesting conversation with a much older judge. He was a Democrat, an old-school liberal, and he said something revealing: Theres the law, and then theres whats right. My job is to do whats right. Or, to put the philosophy in the words of one of my leftist law professors, You determine the outcome first, then you do your reasoning. Time after time, thats exactly what Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to do.
I can think of few better summaries of Kennedys jurisprudence especially in the cases that fired his passion the most than this infamous passage from Planned Parenthood v. Casey: At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. As a statement of dorm-room philosophy, its mildly interesting. As the expression of a constitutional ideal, its wildly incoherent.
Looking at Trumps list of 25 candidates (and reading the speculative short lists) to replace Kennedy, one thing seems certain: The moment the new nominee is confirmed, no matter who it is, the Supreme Court will grow appreciably more originalist. Look for fewer sweeping moral statements like Kennedys declaration in Obergefell that marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there and more close textual and historical analyses of the Constitution.
No one should believe that any judge is entirely free of ideological bias, but there is a profound difference between judges who approach a legal conflict with the question, What does the Constitution mean? and those who instead ask, What does justice demand?
Any originalist would come to the court facing an immensely powerful administrative state and a social movement that increasingly places statutory or regulatory rights (like public-accommodation statutes or contraception mandates, to take two recent examples) in conflict with constitutional rights. Moreover, this same originalist will likely at some point have to face the immense confusion and uncertainty surrounding the scope of the Second Amendment. And he or she will have to decide claims asserted on the basis of judge-made civil liberties, most notably the right to abortion.
So, what can we reasonably expect?
First, when the sexual revolution collides with the First Amendment, expect to see the First Amendment win. Thats the way the conflict played out in NIFLA and Masterpiece Cakeshop, to take the two most prominent examples from the Courts most recent term. A more solidly originalist court would likely have decided Masterpiece Cakeshop on broader free-expression grounds, would scoff at the very notion that the government could revoke religious institutions tax exemptions for upholding their own notions of sexual morality, and may well take a dim view of efforts to prohibit counselors or pastors from sharing such notions with gay or transgender clients.
Second, look for the court to offer greater clarity on the Second Amendment. Since Heller and McDonald, the Court has essentially gone quiet about gun rights. Left undecided are questions about the extent of the right to bear arms outside the home (implicating carry permits) and the nature and type of weapons precisely protected. If an originalist court follows the late Antonin Scalias reasoning that the Second Amendment attaches to weapons in common use for lawful purposes, then broad assault weapons bans will likely fail.
Third, youd likely find interesting majorities protecting civil liberties from police abuse. There was a time when a conservative judge was essentially a judge who was traditionalist, statist, and institutionalist. Indeed, one of the quickest ways to determine the difference between a liberal and conservative jurist was to examine their record in criminal cases. The conservative judges sided with the state in close cases; the liberals sided with the defendant. With the increasing influence of originalism in conservative legal circles (and the increasing distrust of state power), the entire Bill of Rights has new life. (At the same time, judicial efforts to end the death penalty would likely prove fruitless. Who can credibly argue that abolishing capital punishment was part of the original public meaning of the Eighth Amendment?)
In short, an originalist court stands for a simple proposition: The Founders created an ingenious system of government. We should give it another try.
Fourth, prepare for a more color-blind court. State-sponsored affirmative action especially in higher education has hung on by its fingernails for more than a decade. Its beyond difficult to make an originalist argument for policies that, to take a contemporary example, effectively cap the number of Asians in any given class. The case for affirmative action has rested for a long time on magnifying the state interest in creating diverse communities through policies that explicitly use race as a factor to punish or privilege specific demographics. These policies exist far more as a matter of social justice and academic theory than actual constitutional law. Soon enough, the nation may understand that equal protection means just what it says.
Fifth, expect greater skepticism toward the exercise of executive authority. In the absence of clear and express congressional delegations of power, there is growing originalist resistance to whats called Chevron deference the voluntary judicial practice of deferring to agencies interpretations of federal law so long as they are merely reasonable. The practical result of this doctrine has been an enormous expansion of administrative power and authority, permitting executive agencies to make the law as well as enforce it.
In fact, numerous executive agencies are now combining all three branches of government under one roof. Theyre enforcing and interpreting the laws they make. This practice has had pernicious effects on our constitutional structure and has created an executive branch that would be unrecognizable to the Founders. Ending Chevron deference wouldnt be a cure-all, but it would help restore constitutional governance, and it would start to reverse the incentives for congressional action. Do you want to see new law? Then lets see more legislation and less regulation.
Sixth, American abortion law would likely change, though we dont know how much. Its possible that a solid originalist majority of five justices could reverse Roe. But even though Roe is repugnant to originalism (as is Casey, for that matter), the justices dont issue policy statements; they decide cases, and theyll likely review one or more challenges to various state restrictions on abortion soon enough. A more thoroughly originalist court is far more likely to uphold abortion restrictions and far less likely to adhere to Caseys undue burden standard. But theres nothing about originalism that mandates that they choose to overturn Roe in any given abortion case, and the simple fact of the matter is that each justice in a 54 split would be under immense pressure to preserve abortion as a constitutional right. Would they have the courage to do the right thing, even if that requires doing the right thing with a one-vote majority? Time will tell.
Finally, dont expect an originalist court to overturn Obergefell. I say that not because Obergefell is a well-reasoned decision or because theres anything originalist about it, but because there exists little appetite to mount a serious legal challenge Obergefell, because its difficult to foresee a cert-worthy case that would require the justices to consider the precedent, and because the primary legal controversies surrounding same-sex marriage often have little to do with the legitimacy of same-sex marriage itself. Conflicts between gay rights and religious liberty arose both before and after Obergefell, and their outcomes dont tend to stand or fall on the basis of Kennedys most famous precedent.
There are those who will look at the list above with shock and horror. But Im less sympathetic to the notion that the cause of building a just society somehow requires granting the state the power to dramatically limit free speech (or even compel speech, as California attempted to do to pro-life crisis-pregnancy centers in NIFLA), to create immense administrative superstructures subject to the barest legal oversight, and to make explicit, race-based decisions in dispensing jobs or college admissions. And justice actually requires that we reverse Roe and work mightily to end the senseless and unjustified slaughter of millions of the most innocent and vulnerable Americans.
In short, an originalist court stands for a simple proposition: The Founders created an ingenious system of government. We should give it another try.
Yes it is difficult as it should be. If it was easy the constitution would cease to exist.
The real hell of it is many cases should not even reach the supreme court. It should be handled at the state level. An expansive federal government has reached deep into the states via activist federal courts deciding things they should not be involved with.
My whole adult life GOP POTUS’ have been betraying us on the SCOTUS, so forgive me for being cynical. I was one who naively made excuses for the O’Connor pick when everyone knew she was pro-abortion. RWR gave us Scalia. But also O’Connor & Kennedy + two more generations of abortion on demand. Bush I was worse. Bush II tried to put in that RINO woman but the whole party stopped him.
I hope I’m wrong, but I am very concerned that he will blow this. I’m rooting for Sen. Lee.
Scalia was on the better end of the spectrum, but Scalia was an authoritarian and a Statist. He also had little regard for that great institution that was responsible for justice in the Anglo Saxon world - the common law. It's principles underlie and lay the foundation for our constitution and its interpretation.
In other words, Kennedy's legacy was saved by the fact that, being a pervert himself, the last case he saved for the American people did not involve favoring the small, loud and uncompromising sicko segment of the American populace.
That's what I always thought. But I know a good libertarian who said Scalia was great on civil liberties. I guess he was a mixed bag.
Roberts & Alito are complete authoritarians. Hopefully, that kind of "conservatism" is dying out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.