[EL] Partisanship on SCOTUS

[Justin Levitt]

Self-promotion alert: maybe part of the issue is that the word 
"partisanship" conflates several distinct phenomena 
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2239491> (each with 
different normative valence).

-- 
Justin Levitt
Professor of Law
(on leave through spring 2017)
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles

On 4/12/2017 10:37 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
> *Chief Justice Roberts at Best Half Right About Partisanship on 
> #SCOTUS <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92079>*
>
> Posted on April 12, 2017 10:35 am 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92079> by *Rick Hasen* 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> In remarks 
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/partisan-battles-over-nominees-pose-real-danger-for-supreme-court-chief-justice-says/2017/04/11/62e89c2c-1ee9-11e7-a0a7-8b2a45e3dc84_story.html?utm_term=.bbe6e577a87a> at 
> a college yesterday, the Chief was right to say that the confirmation 
> process is exceedingly partisan:
>
> / “It is a real danger that the partisan hostility that people see in 
> the political branches will affect the nonpartisan activity of the 
> judicial branch. It is very difficult I think for a member of the 
> public to look at what goes on in confirmation hearings these days, 
> which is a very sharp conflict in political terms between Democrats 
> and Republicans, and not think that the person who comes out of that 
> process must similarly share that partisan view of public issues and 
> public life.”/
>
> The part where he is wrong is when he says that the Justices decide 
> the cases before them “in a completely nonpartisan way.”
>
> If by that the Chief means that the Justices do not consciously 
> consider the positions of the party of the President that appointed 
> him or her, that’s probably correct. But where he is incorrect is to 
> suggest that there is no partisan valence to the decisions of the 
> Court. On issues like affirmative action, voting rights campaign 
> finance, abortion, environmental law and more—-the most difficult 
> issues to come before the Court—the Court generally divides along 
> ideological lines. And since the retirement of Justice Stevens, those 
> ideological lines correspond with partisan lines as well. All the 
> conservative Justices were appointed by Republican presidents and all 
> the liberal Justices were appointed by Democratic presidents.
>
> To pretend it is “nonpartisan” and balls and strikes ignores reality.
>
> And the trend is likely to get much worse.
>
>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D92079&title=Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%20at%20Best%20Half%20Right%20About%20Partisanship%20on%20%23SCOTUS>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170412/ec11dfec/attachment.html>