Rashomon and the Roberts Court
نویسنده
چکیده
As the opening quip of Pam Karlan’s article suggests,1 it is difficult to make sensible predictions about the future of the Roberts Court’s election law jurisprudence based upon the two cases decided during its first year. Even law professors are cautious about drawing inferences from two data points. And given the many opinions rendered in Randall v. Sorrell2 and League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC),3 such an exercise is more likely to involve chaos theory than geometry. A few years ago, I argued that the Supreme Court was in the midst of a doctrinal interregnum.4 During those last years of the Rehnquist Court, the Court was aware that a new, cohesive majority would emerge at some point in the future. Due to the vagaries of politics and the timing of retirement decisions, however, no one knew precisely who would be in that majority. For this reason, the Court was trapped in a holding pattern: aware of “the imminence of a paradigm shift, but . . . not sure where the next analytic road [would] lead[,] . . . [it was] content with going through the motions, patching the holes in the existing foundation, holding the doctrinal edifice together a little while longer.”5 The doctrinal interregnum continues. We are still at least one presidential election away from knowing which coalition will choose the path the Court will take as it wends its way through the political thicket. The highly fractured decisions rendered by the Roberts Court last Term provide further proof of the interregnum. Not only do these decisions do little to advance the doctrine in any area, they suggest that the Justices cannot even be bothered to forge broad agreement among themselves. Once they have cobbled together enough votes, the Justices feel free to pursue their own idiosyncratic views in separate opinions. Indeed, even the Justices writing for
منابع مشابه
The Least Activist Supreme Court in History? the Roberts Court and the Exercise of Judicial Review
Not too many years ago, scholars could reasonably speak of the U.S. Supreme Court as being among the most activist in American history. Both empirical and normative scholarship was driven by the sense of a Court that was aggressive in the assertion of its own supremacy and active in the exercise of the power of judicial review. The Court under Chief Justice John Roberts cannot be viewed in the ...
متن کامل17 Green Bag 2 D 173 the Doctrine of One Last Chance
ONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE is an old idea, but the Roberts Court has given it a new twist. Instead of avoiding constitutional questions whenever possible, recent Supreme Court majorities have tended to engage in avoidance just once before issuing disruptive decisions. For example, the Roberts Court initially ducked constitutional challenges to central pillars of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ...
متن کاملMeasuring Internal Influence on the Rehnquist Court: An Analysis of Non-Majority Opinion Joining Behavior
As one of the few studies to examine internal influence among Justices on the United States Supreme Court, this Note seeks to identify the most influential individuals on the Rehnquist Court. Using an empirical analysis of non-majority opinion joining behavior, this Note examines two time periods separately: the entire Rehnquist Court (the 1986 to 2004 Terms) and the time when the membership on...
متن کاملFacial and As-Applied Challenges Under the Roberts Court
Resistance to facial challenges is a recurring theme of the Roberts Court’s early years. Yet close analysis of the Court’s decisions suggests that its approach to facial and as-applied challenges is largely consistent with prior practice. Despite occasional description of as-applied challenges in narrow terms, it has expressly preserved the possibility that as-applied challenges could be brough...
متن کامل