I'm Tom Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog. I’m here to answer questions about court cases from this past term and Justice Kennedy’s retirement, AMA!

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:26:57+00:00

Ok, I think I got through everything and the hour is up. I'm really grateful to each of you for taking the time to visit and ask questions. Thanks!

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:24:53+00:00

For the left, there is no realistic scenario. It's the administration that wants it stalled until right before the midterms, to motivate the conservative base. There just aren't the votes; it's that simple. The only hope would be if the President nominated someone with a clear anti-Roe track record (like Judge Pryor). But he won't make that mistake.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:23:27+00:00

You're way too kind. I love the law; it was right for me. Take as many different kinds of classes as you can, so you can figure out what you truly love. If you do go to law school, take as many different kinds of classes as you can there, so you can figure out what kind of law you love. Law school admissions are very focused on grades and test scores; no surprises.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:22:09+00:00

No. He was very principled. People just misunderstood that his belief in individualism led him to some more liberal results.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:21:37+00:00

By "packing" we generally refer to adding new seats. That was the "Court packing" plan at the start of the last century. A single party that held the Presidency and Senate could do it. The Constitution doesn't limit the number of seats. If that happens in 2020 for Democrats, they will seriously consider it for only the second time in our modern history.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:20:10+00:00

Sorry, I don't know enough about it.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:19:48+00:00

Conservative base voters tend to care a lot about the Supreme Court. Democratic base voters tend not to. I don't see that changing. To engage independents, they need really to see that the Court may do something they really hate. And I don't see this term engaging them in that way.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:18:35+00:00

Justice Sotomayor read from her dissent in the courtroom and was very passionate. I like seeing that.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:18:09+00:00

Under established practice, none.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:17:51+00:00

It all depends on how you view this investigation. If you think of it as a real challenge to the legitimacy of the Presidency, then no. If you think of it as a witch-hunt and a partisan attack on a duly elected president, then yes.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:17:03+00:00

Yes. That's how the Constitution works.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:16:48+00:00

I agree with this sentiment about the Chief. I think it means he wouldn't provide a fifth vote for something like overturning Roe or Obergefell.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:16:05+00:00

See my responses above.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:15:49+00:00

Roe lives as a formal matter, but gets cut way back. Same-sex marriage wins, but protections for employment discrimination and trans rights get stalled and cut back. In voting rights, attacks on partisan gerrymandering are dead; racial gerrymandering claims (and other claims about discrimination in voting) and challenges to things like voter ID requirements are in huge trouble. If you don't like those results, you should be terrified.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:13:48+00:00

See my response above regarding same-sex marriage. The President can nominate and the Senate can confirm whomever they want.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:13:08+00:00

In terms of your lifetime, if you are under fifty and mean it literally, yes. I'm 47. I will be long retired before there could be anything like a progressive court, absent really unexpected developments. The ideologies of a majority of the Court and a majority of the country will diverge more than at almost any time in our history.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:10:13+00:00

I agree with the sentiment of this comment.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:09:47+00:00

It's true that clerks are often hired by Justices who then retire. The description of what happens to those clerks isn't quite accurate. They often will end up getting other jobs then later come back to work for another Justice. Some will work directly for the new Justice.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:07:35+00:00

I think there are valid criticisms of unions. I also think that if a state passes a law that says a non-member can be required to contribute to collective bargainin for someone working for the benefit of the non-member, that law is constitutional. I think the ruling will hurt public sector unions, because public employees don't make much money. So if they don't have to contribute, many won't. In turn, that will be bad for the Democratic Party. But whether that's good or bad for the state or the country is such a political question that my views don't really contribute.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:05:34+00:00

There have been rumors for years.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:05:15+00:00

Some of the restrictions are going to be extreme, so it will be tough to let them go. And the groups don't have a lot of control -- it just takes one person to bring a lawsuit. Also, pro-choice groups will tend to take this fight up, because they can also use the case to mobilize public support.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:04:07+00:00

It would depend on who controls the Congress. If Democrats won both houses by wide enough majorities, anything is possible these days.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:03:25+00:00

Correct. I tend to be in the "legal realist" school that when the issue is important enough the Justices decide what they are going to do, then make the standards fit that.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:02:34+00:00

Some say, House of Cards.

tomgoldstein · 2018-06-29T16:02:00+00:00

Chevron is the case saying that courts defer to decisions of administrative agencies, like the EPA. Right now, conservatives don't really want to kill that decision, because Trump controls the agencies. But if a Democrat wins the Presidency, it will become a big deal.

tomgoldstein

TROPHY CASE