Blue Commonwealth Logo

Advanced Search
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Become a Supporter
Like Blue Commonwealth? Want to help keep it running?
Contribute Today, and help keep our blog ad free!




Blog Roll
7 West
Albo Must Go
Anonymous is a Woman
Anti-BVBL
Article XI
Assembly Access
Augusta Free Press
Bacon's Rebellion
Blacknell
Blue Ridge Data
Blue Virginia
Blueweeds
Byrne-ing Up the Internet
Central VA Progressive
ChangeServant
Coarse Cracked Corn
CobaltVA
CvilleDave
The Daily Dogwood
Dem Bones
DemocracyUpsideDown
DemRulz
Equality Loudoun
Fairfax City Dems
WaPo - The Fix
Fred2Blue
Getting Around
Great Blue Heron
The Green Miles
Heartland of Va
Leesburg Tomorrow
Left of the Hill
New Dominion Project
Not Larry Sabato
Ox Road South Blog
Penning Thoughts
Powhatan Democrats
Renaissance Ruminations
River City Rapids
Rule .303
RockDem
Shad Plank
Sisyphus
SlantBlog
Southeast Virginia
Star City Harbinger
Tokatakiya
Too Progressive
United States of Jamerica
VB Dems
VB Progressives
Virginia Dem
The Virginia Democrat
WaPo - Virginia Politics Blog
Vivian Paige
Waldo Jaquith
Waldo's VA Political Blogroll
xcurmudgeon

Ramesh Ponnuru: When Judicial Activism Suits the Right

by: teacherken

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 06:46:22 AM EDT


( - promoted by kindler)

=originally posted at Daily Kos

Your eyes are not deceiving you.  My title begins with the name of a prominent conservative commentator, now offering op eds at The New York Times.  After the colon?  That is the title of his Times piece today  And he is applying it to two of the highest profile cases before the U. S. Supreme Court this term, the just released decision on the Voting Rights Act, and the forthcoming decision in the Ricci case on affirmative action.

Take this op ed.  Print it out and save it electronically, because it makes clear how activist the conservative members of SCOTUS can be when it suits them, and as Ponnoru notes, this is especially true on matters of race.   I know I will be using this column in teaching my Advanced Placement students this forthcoming year.

Come below the fold for just a few examples of what Ponnuru says, followed by a few additional thoughts of my own.

teacherken :: Ramesh Ponnuru: When Judicial Activism Suits the Right
Ponnuru makes his argument in the context of the approval process for the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, especially relevant since she was a member of the 3-judge panel in the Circuit decision in Ricci v New Haven, in which a decision is yet to be rendered.  

In the Voting Rights Act case from Texas, just released, Ponnuru notes that Clarence Thomas, perhaps the strongest originalist on the current Court, was alone in arguing that it

was justified in the 1960s in responding to the denial of the voting rights guaranteed by the 15th Amendment, but things have changed and the provision is no longer needed.
 While Ponnuru agrees that the law is outdated, he notes the decision is not up to him or the Court, since
Congress is the proper body to make that judgment. In 2006, it decided to renew the law for 25 years. Its determination that the law was still necessary may have been mistaken, but it is not clear that the Constitution authorizes judges to second-guess it.
 And from an originalist standpoint, Ponnuru is quite blunt, noting the lack of any discussion of the intent of the drafters of the 15th Amendment, whose second clause, upon which the Voting Rights Act is based, reads:
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
 Ponnuru writes
It is hard to believe that, back in 1870, they wished to empower courts to determine which voting rights laws were necessary. The occasion for the amendment was, after all, the end of a civil war brought about in significant part by judicial overreaching in the Dred Scott case.

Ponnuru then gives the background of the Ricci case, including the participation of Sotomayor on the 3-judge panel that rejected the firefighter's appeal.  While thinking that on his merits Ricci deserved the promotion, Ponnuru writes appropriately

But contrary to what many conservatives insist, that does not mean he should win the case. The legal arguments for his position, as for the invalidation of the Voting Rights Act, are not absurd: they include reasonable readings of Supreme Court precedent. They just aren't originalist arguments.
 While I doubt that will stop Thomas and perhaps several others from ruling in Ricci's favor, Ponnuru is correct in noting that to support Ricci one has to argue that in drafting the 14th Amendment the Congress intended a policy of strict color-blindness by state and local governments for which the evidence is so weak that for Conservatives addressing issues flowing from the Equal Protection Clause,
originalist analysis has been notably absent from their opinions in affirmative-action cases.
 The next paragraph is key:
Judicial restraint has also been absent. That virtue is best understood as a finger on the scales, tipping judges in close cases against invalidating the actions of Congress or state or local governments. To invalidate laws without a strong argument that the Constitution requires doing so is precisely what conservatives usually mean by "judicial activism."
 Ponnuru concludes by reminding people that not every legal wrong has a judicial solution, and hammers home this point in his final two sentences:
When President Obama has talked about empathy on the bench, conservatives have responded that, given free rein, it can lead judicial reasoning astray. On race, unfortunately, we are illustrating our own point.

My commentary on this is from the perspective of one who teaches adolescents.  First, I think the entire approach of "originalism" is more than a little flawed.  I have always found it ironic that members of the Federalist Society hold up as their hero John Marshall, who while a Federalist, was hardly one easily categorized as either a strict constructionist or one who used loose/broad construction in his interpretations.  Certainly his insistence on the constitutional limitation of original jurisdiction in declaring part of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional in Marbury seems on its face to be strict constructionist.  But that is the only case during Marshall's long tenure that an act of Congress was declared, even in part, unconstitutional, the next such ruling being that of Taney with respect to the Missouri Compromise in the Dred Scott case.  In fact, one might well argue that some of his other rulings, such as his interpretation of both the Commerce Clause in Gibbons v Ogden and the elastic clause in McCulloch v Maryland are sweepingly broad.  A Federalist believing in the importance of the powers of the national government would certainly support both, but I doubt the argument could be made either on the basis of originalism or strict interpretation of the text.

Justices are human beings.  Perhaps it is because as one of Jewish background I have an awareness of Talmudic reasoning that I am aware that those making legal rulings can find creative ways of legally justifying a decision they believe needs to be made.  I think we have seen this in rulings from the left as well as those from the right.  And in that sense the idea of empathy becomes important, as does one's view of the purpose of law and constitution.  If one is empathetic towards business owners but not workers or customers one needs to be careful that the "finger on the scales, tipping judges in close cases against invalidating the actions of Congress or state or local governments" not be too heavy.  

Further, justices usually prefer to argue that they are remaining within the framework of precedent to avoid being charged with outright activism.  Thus Brown did NOT overturn Plessy, instead arguing that segregated public schools are inherently unequal and thus could not meet the test of Plessy.  While if we agree with the outcome we might applaud the creative argument that enabled the Court to reach a unanimous decision, we should note that a similar method of arguing has been used to gut the rights granted in Roe while ostensibly leaving the decision in place.  Perhaps in that case the intellectually honest thing might have been to argue, as some Conservatives have, that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned.   After all, in 1943 Robert Jackson wrote the opinion of the Court in a 6-3 decision in Barnette that overturned an 8-1 decision from 3 years earlier in Gobitis

I would be interested in seeing how the reasoning Ponnuru offers plays out in a case involving the Defense of Marriage Act.  One can argue that on an originalist basis either way -  the Founders had no concept of same sex marriage, but wrote in the context of monogamous and heterosexual marriages.  And yet, the Full Faith and Credit Clause seems to clearly argue that the proper legal acts of one state must as a matter of constitutional principle be recognized by the other states.  Our practice on this, however, has not been consistent -  one need only look at the history of anti-miscegenation laws to see examples.  And Mitt Romney was able to rely on a Massachusetts statute that had never been overturned when he ordered clerks not to issue licenses to out of state same sex couples when that state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state's constitution did not allow restricting marriage licenses to heterosexual couples.

It will be interesting to see what if any pushback other conservatives give to this thoughtful piece by Ponnuru.  I just wanted to be sure that people gave it a look.

Peace.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Richmond: It's where Mountaintop Removal
rulings by progressive judges, such as (Republican, by the way) Chuck Haden's in West Virginia, go to get overturned.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

It's one of the most conservative in the country. Thus, appointments to this court by President Obama are vital.

This federal court epitomizes what Sotomayor meant when she said the federal bench makes law.

In other words, it's where federal legislation is interpreted.

Judicial activism in that regard applies as much to conservative judges as it does to liberal jurists.


Recent Comments

Blue Commonwealth is a community forum for the discussion of political issues of interest to Virginians.
The opinions expressed by users of this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Blue Commonwealth or its editors.
Powered by: SoapBlox