DOCSLIB.ORG

Book Review by M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Book Review by M BOOK REVIEW By M. KELLY TILLERY Accuracy, Reality and Nuance A Thorough Evaluation of the Relationship Between the Roberts Court and the Constitution Uncertain Justice Marcia Coyle’s “The Roberts Court: The – The Roberts Court and Struggle for The Constitution” (Simon The Constitution & Schuster, 2013, 464 p.) and Tribe’s Written by Laurence Tribe and fellow Harvard Law School Professor Joshua Matz Mark Tushnet’s “In The Balance: Law 401 pages and Politics on The Roberts Court” $ 32, Henry Holt and Co., 2014 (W.W. Norton & Co., 2013, 352 p.), but this one does the most, the best, in the arvard Law Professor and fewest pages. U.S. Supreme Court scholar While this court has had more than its H Laurence Tribe and co- fair share of 5-4 decisions with Justice author Joshua Matz masterfully distill Kennedy the deciding vote between the the debacle that is the Roberts Court’s right of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and first decade into only a few hundred Alito and the left of Breyer, Ginsburg, pages of quite readable, informative and Kagan and Sotomayor, neither entertaining prose. ideological ‘block’ is entirely monolithic Those who attended Tribe’s recent PBI or predictable. Nor is the pivot, Justice CLE presentation in Philadelphia, for Kennedy. Thus, “Uncertain Justice.” which this book served as the handout, Even the most jaded liberal critic of will find the professor’s remarks lifted this court will be surprised to find that almost verbatim therefrom, but also although it is, by tradition, called the a further cornucopia of political and “Roberts Court,” the chief justice is constitutional philosophy, thoughtful a la William Howard Taft. less in control than he is herding cats analysis of the Roberts Court key Co-author Matz, a recent Harvard law most of the time. As Tribe and Matz opinions, and a variety of court trivia. grad (and Penn undergrad), is clearly write, even the new Four Horsemen Professor Tribe knows whereof he a man who deserves attention. After disagree, and sometimes vehemently. speaks and writes. He served as a law clerking for a district court judge in New For example, in Maryland v. King clerk to Associate Justice Potter Stewart York, and a Ninth Circuit judge in Los (2013) we find originalist Scalia in the (1967-1968), has taught constitutional Angeles, he now serves as a law clerk company of liberals Ginsburg, Kagan law at Harvard for almost 50 years, to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Sotomayor arguing that arrestees co-founded the American Constitution arguably the most important voice on cannot be constitutionally DNA-tested Society, and has written at least seven the Constitution on the court and in the without a warrant. books on the Constitution. He has nation. This work provides fascinating argued 36 cases in the Supreme Court Tribe is well known as a liberal insights into each justice’s style, with a record of 19 wins, 15 losses and and tough critic of the Roberts Court, philosophy, predilections, and, yes, two draws. particularly of the new four horsemen agenda. Originalists may not view the Tribe taught constitutional law to (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito), but Constitution as a “living, breathing Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate his work is a sober, measured, temperate document,” but none can deny that this Justice Elena Kagan and President and balanced review, analysis and court is very much alive and changing. Barack Obama. While judiciously critique of the court’s most important And, as it does, so do our rights as U.S. refraining from public comment on decisions over the last nine years. citizens. Roberts’ mettle as a student of the The authors’ prologue tells readers The prose is unlively, but sometimes Constitution, he has remarked that that they “… aim to bring to life the witty and always well thought out Obama, his research assistant for two nine lawyers who gather in a conference and footnoted. Only in a book about years, was “the best student I ever had.” room and create the rules by which we the Supreme Court would one find If Hillary Clinton wins in 2016, do not live.” And they do so, quite nicely. expressions such as “an aggressive be surprised if Obama’s post-presidency There are other excellent works on footnote,” “muscular dissent,” “head- includes a seat on the Supreme Court, the Roberts Court, such as reporter fake argument” or “the influence 46 the philadelphia lawyer Spring 2015 This work provides fascinating insights into each justice’s style, philosophy, predilections, and, yes, agenda. of Immanuel Kant in evidentiary hostile to civil rights, averse to criminal As disturbing as some of this court’s approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria.” defendants, and too deferential to the rulings and the future decisions they And while there are lighter moments such government on national security issues. portend are, the chief justice’s unilateral as why Justice Ginsburg is “The Frozen But the authors make clear that while non-judicial decision on May 4, 2010 Yogurt Justice” or the awkward moment such is not an unfair or inaccurate picture, to seal the great bronze doors at the of the Phillie Phanatic embracing Justice the reality is much more nuanced. front entrance to the court may be the Alito in chambers, it is remarkable to see The good news is that this court grants most disconcerting. Justices Breyer how some of the justices can be so petty, only 1 percent of petitions for cert and and Ginsburg wrote at the time, “This personal, juvenile, and, on occasion, now only issues about 75 opinions per court’s main entrance and front steps are arguably rude and unprofessional. Easy term. Most “law” in the federal courts is not merely only a means to, but also a to see why Alexander Bickel’s “nine still made/found in the trenches by the metaphor for, access to the court itself.” scorpions in a bottle” label is rather apt. 678 district court judges who handle the This court, and the justice it dispenses, While the Roberts Court has issued almost 400,000 cases filed each year. may now be accessible and beneficial 725 opinions, the authors focus on fewer At his 2005 Senate confirmation only to the rich and powerful. than 40 (or 5 percent), selecting those hearing, Roberts famously said, “It’s concerning our most fundamental rights my job to call balls and strikes.” No M. Kelly Tillery ([email protected]), such as voting, free speech, affirmative one in the legal community, much less a partner with Pepper Hamilton LLP, is action, health care, gun ownership, Tribe and Matz, took his umpire analogy Editor-in-Chief of The Philadelphia Lawyer. privacy, marriage and campaign finance. seriously, even if a bevy of Republican In each, the Roberts Court has made senators did. As Justice Kagan opined at striking changes in the fundamental her confirmation hearing, “… I do not fabric of constitutional law. Some argue, think that that is right, and it is especially with ample evidence, that this court is not right at the Supreme Court level, decidedly pro-business, anti-consumer, where the hardest cases go.” the philadelphia lawyer Spring 2015 47.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court Neal Devins William & Mary Law School, [email protected]
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2007 Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court Neal Devins William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Devins, Neal, "Constitutional Avoidance and the Roberts Court" (2007). Faculty Publications. 346. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/346 Copyright c 2007 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs CONSTITUTIONAL A VOIDANCE AND THE ROBERTS COURT Neal Devins • This essay will extend Phil Frickey's argument about the Warren Court's constitutional avoidance to the Roberts Court. My concern is whether the conditions which supported constitutional avoidance by the Warren Court support constitutional avoidance by today's Court. For reasons I will soon detail, the Roberts Court faces a far different Congress than the Warren Court and, as such, need not make extensive use of constitutional avoidance. In Getting from Joe to Gene (McCarthy), Phil Frickey argues that the Warren Court avoided serious conflict with Congress in the late 1950s by exercising subconstitutional avoidance. 1 In other words, the Court sought to avoid congressional backlash by refraining from declaring statutes unconstitutional. Instead, the Court sought to invalidate statutes or congressional actions based on technicalities. If Congress disagreed with the results reached by the Court, lawmakers could have taken legislative action to remedy the problem. This practice allowed the Court to maintain an opening through which it could backtrack and decide similar cases differently without reversing a constitutional decision. In understanding the relevance of Frickey's argument to today's Court, it is useful to compare Court-Congress relations during the Warren Court of the late 1950s to those during the final years of the Rehnquist Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Clerk and Justice: the Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OpenCommons at University of Connecticut University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2008 Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge Laura Krugman Ray Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Recommended Citation Ray, Laura Krugman, "Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge" (2008). Connecticut Law Review. 5. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/5 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 41 NOVEMBER 2008 NUMBER 1 Article Clerk and Justice: The Ties That Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge LAURA KRUGMAN RAY Justice John Paul Stevens, now starting his thirty-third full term on the Supreme Court, served as law clerk to Justice Wiley B. Rutledge during the Court’s 1947 Term. That experience has informed both elements of Stevens’s jurisprudence and aspects of his approach to his institutional role. Like Rutledge, Stevens has written powerful opinions on issues of individual rights, the Establishment Clause, and the reach of executive power in wartime. Stevens has also, like Rutledge, been a frequent author of dissents and concurrences, choosing to express his divergences from the majority rather than to vote in silence. Within his chambers, Stevens has in many ways adopted his own clerkship experience in preference to current models. Unlike the practices of most of his colleagues, Stevens hires fewer clerks, writes his own first drafts, and shares certiorari decisionmaking with his clerks.
    [Show full text]
  • First Amendment Tests from the Burger Court: Will They Be Flipped?
    FIRST AMENDMENT TESTS FROM THE BURGER COURT: WILL THEY BE FLIPPED? David L. Hudson, Jr. † and Emily H. Harvey †† I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 52 II. THE LEMON TEST ..................................................................... 53 III. THE MILLER TEST .................................................................... 58 IV. THE CENTRAL HUDSON TEST ..................................................... 63 V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 66 I. INTRODUCTION When scholars speak of the Burger Court, they often mention the curtailing of individual rights in the criminal justice arena, 1 federalism decisions, 2 its “rootless activism,” 3 a failure in equal † David L. Hudson, Jr., is a Justice Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the Newseum Institute First Amendment Fellow. He teaches at the Nashville School of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. He would like to thank his co-author Emily Harvey, the student editors of the Mitchell Hamline Law Review , and Azhar Majeed of FIRE. †† Emily H. Harvey is the senior judicial law clerk for the Hon. Frank G. Clement, Jr., of the Tennessee Court of Appeals. 1. See Yale Kamisar, The Warren Court and Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective , 31 TULSA L.J. 1, 14, 44 (1995); Steven D. Clymer, Note, Warrantless Vehicle Searches and the Fourth Amendment: The Burger Court Attacks the Exclusionary Rule , 68 CORNELL L. REV . 105, 129, 141, 144–45 (1982). 2. See David Scott Louk, Note, Repairing the Irreparable: Revisiting the Federalism Decisions of the Burger Court , 125 YALE L.J. 682, 686–87, 694, 710, 724–25 (2016); Lea Brilmayer & Ronald D. Lee, State Sovereignty and the Two Faces of Federalism: A Comparative Study of Federal Jurisdiction and the Conflict of Laws , 60 NOTRE DAME L.
    [Show full text]
  • Property and the Roberts Court
    Property and the Roberts Court John G. Sprankling I. INTRODUCTION How do property owners fare before the Roberts Court? Quite well. Owners prevail in 86% of civil property-related disputes with government entities.1 But this statistic does not tell the whole story. This Article demonstrates that under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts the Court has expanded the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to owners to a greater extent than any prior Court. It analyzes the key trends in the Court’s jurisprudence that will shape its decisions on property issues in future decades. Almost 100 years ago, Justice Holmes remarked that government regulation of property which went “too far” would be unconstitutional; yet the precise line between permissible and impermissible action has never been drawn.2 The issue has generated debate through much of American history, particularly in recent decades as the influence of conservative ideology on the Supreme Court has expanded. The Burger and Rehnquist Courts were broadly viewed as more sympathetic to private property than the Warren Court had been. However, the most controversial anti-owner decision of the modern era, Kelo v. City of New London,3 was decided in the final year of the Rehnquist Court. In Kelo, the Court held that the city was empowered to condemn owner-occupied homes and transfer them to private developers as part of an economic redevelopment project4―a ruling that ignited a firestorm of protest across the nation. In his confirmation hearings to serve as Chief Justice, John Roberts pledged to act as an “umpire” on the Court, a person with “no agenda” Distinguished Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: the Ghost of William Howard Taft
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2006 The uprS eme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: The Ghost of William Howard Taft Kenneth W. Starr Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Starr, Kenneth W., "The uS preme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: The Ghost of William Howard Taft" (2006). Minnesota Law Review. 32. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/32 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARR_3FMT 05/17/2006 09:15:32 AM Essay The Supreme Court and Its Shrinking Docket: The Ghost of William Howard Taft Kenneth W. Starr† William Howard Taft genially served as the tenth Chief Justice of the United States.1 His career was of breathtaking variety. Younger even than current Solicitor General Paul Clement, the buoyant Solicitor General Taft delivered “speech” after “speech” in the Supreme Court in the late nineteenth cen- tury. Little did he suspect, one might safely surmise, that one day—after an intervening tour of duty as President of the United States—he would occupy the center chair itself and lis- ten to his successors (many times removed) delivering their “speeches” to the Court in the old English style. In those hal- cyon, or at least less hurried, days, lawyers were allowed abun- dant time to present their case, educate the Justices, and per- haps even persuade the Court by the force of oral advocacy.2 Those were also the days when the Court was duty-bound to decide the lion’s share of the cases that came before it.3 The † Dean, Pepperdine University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Her Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court
    Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Her Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court October 6, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46562 SUMMARY R46562 Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Her Jurisprudence October 6, 2020 and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court Valerie C. Brannon, On September 26, 2020, President Donald J. Trump announced the nomination of Judge Amy Coordinator Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to the Supreme Court of the Legislative Attorney United States to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020. Judge Barrett has been a judge on the Seventh Circuit since November 2017, having Michael John Garcia, been nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate earlier that year. The nominee Coordinator earned her law degree from Notre Dame Law School in 1997, and clerked for Judge Laurence H. Section Research Manager Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. From 2002 until her appointment to the Seventh Circuit in 2017, Judge Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame Law School, and she remains part of the law school faculty. Her Caitlain Devereaux Lewis, scholarship has focused on topics such as theories of constitutional interpretation, stare decisis, Coordinator and statutory interpretation. If confirmed, Judge Barrett would be the fifth woman to serve as a Section Research Manager Supreme Court Justice. During Judge Barrett’s September 26 Supreme Court nomination ceremony, she paid tribute to both Justice Ginsburg and her former mentor, Justice Scalia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court and Judicial Review: Two Views
    Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2011 The Supreme Court and Judicial Review: Two Views Thomas A. Schweitzer Touro Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/scholarlyworks Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation 27 Touro L. Rev. 1 (2011) This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK REVIEW THE SUPREME COURT AND JUDICIAL REVIEW: TWO VIEWS PACKING THE COURT: THE RISE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE COMING CRISIS OF THE SUPREME COURT. By James MacGregor Burns. New York: Penguin Press. 2009. Pp. 326. $27.95. THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE: HOW PUBLIC OPINION HAS INFLUENCED THE SUPREME COURT AND SHAPED THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION. By Barry Friedman. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. 2009. Pp. 614. $35.00. Reviewed by Thomas A. Schweitzer* President Obama caused a stir during his second State of the Union Address in January 2010, when he said the following: With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special in- terests, including foreign corporations, to spend with- out limit in our elections. I don’t think American elec- tions should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.
    [Show full text]
  • Ideological Drift Among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?∗
    Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?∗ Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn & Jeffrey A. Segal† Abstract When President George W. Bush declared that his Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, was “not going to change, that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today,” no one should have been shocked. To the contrary: The President was merely reiterating a claim dominant in public and scholarly discourse over the Supreme Court—that justices come to the Court with robust ideological outlooks and do not veer from them over the course of their tenure. Nonetheless, and despite the commonplace nature of the claim, it is not without its share of skeptics; indeed, some commentators now contend that ideological drift among Supreme Court justices is not just possible but likely. Using systematically developed data and sophisticated statistical tools, we address the ques- tion of whether justices remain committed to a particular doctrinal course over time. The results, as it turns out, could not be clearer: Contrary to the received wisdom, virtually all justices serving since 1937 has grown more liberal or conservative during their tenure on the Court. Finding that change is the rule, not the exception, we develop the implications of our findings for the justices’ appointment to the Court and the doctrine they develop once confirmed. We show, for example, that Presidents hoping to create a lasting legacy in the form of justices who share their ideology can be reasonably certain that their appointees will behave in line with contemporaneous expectations—at least during the justice’s first term in office.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roberts Court 2019-20: Distancing from the Kennedy Era, the Roberts Era Has Begun
    The Roberts Court 2019-20: Distancing from the Kennedy Era, the Roberts Era Has Begun John M. Barkett Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. Miami, Florida Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 8 VOTE COUNTS .................................................................................................................................................. 9 VOTE COUNT TRENDS ................................................................................................................................... 9 PER CURIAM DECISIONS ............................................................................................................................. 10 AUTHORSHIP COUNT .................................................................................................................................. 11 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH ................................................................................................................................ 12 DECISIONS WITH FIVE-VOTE MAJORITIES OR A PLURALITY OF THE COURT....................... 13 Chief Justice Roberts .................................................................................................................................... 13 Georgia v. Public Resource Org., Inc.: The annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are not copyrightable under the government edicts doctrine because they are authored by an arm of the Georgia legislature in the course
    [Show full text]
  • Term of the Roberts Court
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 42 Issue 3 Supreme Court Review Spring 2007 The First (and Last) Term of the Roberts Court Mark Tushnet Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark Tushnet, The First (and Last) Term of the Roberts Court, 42 Tulsa L. Rev. 495 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol42/iss3/1 This Supreme Court Review Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tushnet: The First (and Last) Term of the Roberts Court SYMPOSIUM FOREWORD THE FIRST (AND LAST?) TERM OF THE ROBERTS COURT Mark Tushnet* Chief Justice John Roberts arrived at the Supreme Court, he has said, with at least one thing on his mind: reducing the number of divided judgments and increasing the number of unanimous ones.' I suggest that he may have arrived there with another "expectation": that he and the Court he led would be collaborating with a Republican president and Congress for the foreseeable future. 2 In this Foreword, I examine whether achieving unanimity is desirable, and whether collaboration is likely. 3 I. UNANIMITY AS A "CONSUMMATION DEVOUTLY TO BE WISHED" In an interview with Jeffrey Rosen, conducted after the completion of Chief Justice Roberts' first term on the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice emphasized his interest in obtaining more unanimous and fewer sharply divided opinions from his colleagues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Passion of John Paul Stevens
    Michigan Law Review Volume 118 Issue 6 2020 The Passion of John Paul Stevens Linda Greenhouse Yale Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Judges Commons, Legal Biography Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Linda Greenhouse, The Passion of John Paul Stevens, 118 MICH. L. REV. 939 (2020). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol118/iss6/3 https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.118.6.passion This Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PASSION OF JOHN PAUL STEVENS Linda Greenhouse* THE MAKING OF A JUSTICE: REFLECTIONS ON MY FIRST 94 YEARS. By John Paul Stevens. New York: Little, Brown and Company. 2019. Pp. ix, 549. $35. I. Justice John Paul Stevens was more celebrated in retirement and after his death, on July 16, 2019 at age ninety-nine, than he was during his nearly thirty-five years on the Supreme Court.1 It’s not difficult to understand why. His retirement in 2010 freed him from the constraints inherent in serving on a collegial court. No longer did he have to worry about accommodating col- leagues whose “joins” he might need to create or hold a majority—a particu- lar challenge during the final sixteen years of his tenure, when he was the senior associate justice, responsible for assigning the majority opinion in cases in which he and the chief justice diverged and the chief was in dissent.2 No longer was the judicial opinion the only form of literature open to him for expressing dismay about the Court’s steady shift to the right on is- sues he cared about.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing the Roberts and Rehnquist Courts' Ideological
    SUPREME SPLIT: COMPARING THE ROBERTS AND REHNQUIST COURTS’ IDEOLOGICAL PREFERENCES TOWARD BUSINESS ACCOUNTING FOR CASE SELECTION Clifford Winston Jia Yan Quentin Karpilow Brookings Institution Washington State University Yale University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract. There is growing concern that Supreme Court rulings are increasingly being made along partisan lines. We develop a new methodology that jointly analyzes justices’ selection of cases to hear and their rulings, while allowing for justice preference heterogeneity, to estimate the effects of their ideology on business case rulings in the Roberts and Rehnquist Courts. In contrast to prior approaches that mute justices’ ideological preferences by not controlling for case selection, we find strong evidence of growing politicization and polarization on the Supreme Court. We briefly discuss explanations for, consequences of, and possible reforms to mitigate this worrisome trend. May 2016 1 1. Introduction The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ultimate jurisdiction over federal laws and plays a central role in determining the nation’s economic and social policies. In contrast to Congress and the Executive Office of the President, the Supreme Court is generally thought to be an independent and apolitical body because justices are appointed for life, are not ambitious for higher office, decide which cases they wish to hear, and are not subject to reversal by a higher court (Segal and Spaeth (2002)). This perceived aloofness from politics has bolstered public trust in the Court, and public opinion polls have repeatedly shown that, of the three branches of government, Americans hold the judicial branch in the highest regard.
    [Show full text]