1 / 45

The President, the Senate, and the Supreme Court: Teaching the Politics of Separation of Powers

The President, the Senate, and the Supreme Court: Teaching the Politics of Separation of Powers Joseph F. Kobylka, Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor Associate Professor of Political Science Prepared for delivery to the APSI, 23 July 2013. The Constitutional Context.

iola
Download Presentation

The President, the Senate, and the Supreme Court: Teaching the Politics of Separation of Powers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The President, the Senate, and the Supreme Court: Teaching the Politics of Separation of Powers Joseph F. Kobylka, Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor Associate Professor of Political Science Prepared for delivery to the APSI, 23 July 2013

  2. The Constitutional Context The Constitution is a Legal Document, but…. it is an Interpreted Document

  3. The Constitutional- Court Context … and who interprets it? The Supremes • “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” • – Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

  4. The Constitutional- Court Context • "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and our prosperity under the Constitution.“ • - Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (1908)

  5. Text, Times, and the Court Over Time… The text of the Constitution has changed “We the People” have evolved Government has become more “democratic” The Justices interpreting the Constitution have changed Times and problems have changed Governmental responses & policy have changed Interpretational Approaches have changed Textualism/Intentionalism “Living Constitution”/Common Law

  6. Text, Times, Issues, and the Court Criminal Law – capital punishment Privacy – abortion & gay rights Freedom of Expression – campaign finance Church-State – school prayer Civil Rights – affirmative action & voting rights National Power – health care, immigration Presidential Power – war on terror Second Amendment – firearm regulation

  7. The Nexus Question: What Influences Changes in Understanding? • Interpretational Approaches • Who is on the Court Answer: Interaction between “Law” and “Politics” • President • Senate

  8. President Obama:Political & Legal Selection Criteria • In … hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point…. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern… whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart. (statement opposing confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts) • “In examining Judge Alito's many decisions, I have seen extraordinarily consistent support for the powerful against the powerless, for the employer against the employee, for the President against the Congress and the Judiciary, and for an overreaching federal government against individual rights and liberties.” (statement opposing confirmation of Justice Alito)

  9. Republican Presidents (and Candidates) - Political & Legal Selection Criteria Ronald Reagan (1981-89) • “We [will] continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade.” • “the Court ruled wrongly with regard to prayer in public schools….Wasn’t this a case of the Court going beyond what the Constitution actually says?” • “[promote] equal opportunities for all Americans with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination.” “George W. Bush (2001-2009) • “I have great respect for Justice Scalia for the strength of his mind, the consistency of his convictions, and the judicial philosophy he defends.” Mitt Romney • “…will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. [These] judges… will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written.”

  10. Text, Times, Issues, and the Court Because of the role the Supreme Court plays in interpreting what the Constitution means, who is on the Court is crucial to constitutional meaning. Constructing the Court is a political task: President Senate Context The Supremes Obama Inherited

  11. The Supremes Obama Inherited • Chief Justice Roberts • G. W. Bush (R) • 27 January 1955 (58) • September 29, 2005 (8) • Roman Catholic • Indiana • Harvard; Harvard • Confirmed: 78-22 • Justice Stevens • Justice Scalia • Justice Kennedy • Justice Thomas • Justice Ginsburg • Justice Breyer • Justice Alito

  12. The Supremes Obama Inherited • Chief Justice Roberts • Justice Stevens • G. Ford (R) • April 20, 1920 (93) • December 19, 1975 (35) • Protestant • Illinois • U. Chicago; Northwestern • Justice Scalia • Justice Kennedy • Justice Thomas • Justice Ginsburg • Justice Breyer • Justice Alito

  13. The Supremes Obama Inherited • Chief Justice Roberts • Justice Stevens • Justice Scalia • R. Reagan • March 11, 1936 (77) • September 26, 1986 (27) • Roman Catholic • New Jersey/New York • Georgetown; Harvard • Justice Kennedy • Justice Souter • Justice Thomas • Justice Ginsburg • Justice Breyer • Justice Alito

  14. The Supremes Obama Inherited • Chief Justice Roberts • Justice Stevens • Justice Scalia • Justice Kennedy • R. Reagan (R) • July 23, 1936 (77) • February 11, 1988 (25) • Roman Catholic • California • Stanford; Harvard • Justice Souter • Justice Thomas • Justice Ginsburg • Justice Breyer • Justice Alito

  15. The Supremes Obama Inherited • Chief Justice Roberts • Justice Stevens • Justice Scalia • Justice Kennedy • Justice Souter • G. H. W. Bush • September 17, 1939 (74) • October 3, 1990 (18) • Episcopalian • New Hampshire • Harvard; Harvard • Justice Thomas • Justice Ginsburg • Justice Breyer • Justice Alito

  16. The Supremes Obama Inherited • Chief Justice Roberts • Justice Stevens • Justice Scalia • Justice Kennedy • Justice Souter • Justice Thomas • G. H. W. Bush • June 23, 1948 (65) • October 23, 1991 (22) • Roman Catholic • Georgia • Holy Cross; Yale • Justice Ginsburg • Justice Breyer • Justice Alito

  17. The Supremes Obama Inherited • Chief Justice Roberts • Justice Stevens • Justice Scalia • Justice Kennedy • Justice Souter • Justice Thomas • Justice Ginsburg • W. Clinton • March 15, 1933 (80) • August 10, 1993 (20) • Jewish • New York • Harvard/Columbia • Justice Breyer • Justice Alito

  18. The Supremes Obama Inherited • Chief Justice Roberts • Justice Stevens • Justice Scalia • Justice Kennedy • Justice Souter • Justice Thomas • Justice Ginsburg • Justice Breyer • W. Clinton • August 15, 1938 (74) • August 3, 1994 (19) • Jewish • California • Stanford; Harvard • Justice Alito

  19. The Supremes Obama Inherited • Chief Justice Roberts • Justice Stevens • Justice Scalia • Justice Kennedy • Justice Souter • Justice Thomas • Justice Ginsburg • Justice Breyer • Justice Alito • G. W. Bush • April 1, 1950 (63) • January 31, 2006 (6) • Roman Catholic • New Jersey • Princeton; Yale • Confirmed: 58-42

  20. Recall: Text, Times, and Issues Criminal Law – capital punishment Privacy – abortion & gay rights Freedom of Expression – campaign finance Church-State – school prayer Civil Rights – affirmative action & voting rights National Power – health care, immigration Presidential Power – war on terror Second Amendment – firearm regulation

  21. Descriptive Statistics: 2005-2008 Terms 2005 • Cases decided: 69 • Cases decided with a 5-vote Majority: 16 (22.9%) 2006 • Cases decided: 72 • Cases decided with a 5-vote Majority: 24 (33.3%) 2007 • Cases decided: 71 • Cases decided with a 5-vote Majority: 12 (16.9%) 2008 • Cases decided: 74 • Cases decided with a 5-vote Majority: 23 (31.1%) 26.2% of all decisions of the “Early” Roberts Court Were 5-4 or 5-3

  22. The Supremes in 2008: Ideological Spread

  23. Obama’s Opportunities: First Term

  24. The Obama Shaped Supremes • Chief Justice Roberts • Justice Stevens • Justice Scalia • Justice Kennedy • Justice Thomas • Justice Ginsburg • Justice Breyer • Justice Alito • Justice Sotomayor • Barack Obama • June 25, 1954 (59) • August 8, 2009 (4) • Catholic • New York • Princeton; Yale • Confirmed: 67-29

  25. The Obama Shaped Supremes • Chief Justice Roberts • Justice Scalia • Justice Kennedy • Justice Thomas • Justice Ginsburg • Justice Breyer • Justice Alito • Justice Sotomayor • Justice Kagan • Barack Obama • April 28, 1960 (53) • August 8, 2010 (3) • Jewish • New York • Princeton; Harvard • Confirmed: 63-37

  26. The Present “Roberts” Court

  27. Descriptive Statistics: 2009-2012 Terms 2009 (Sotomayor) • Cases decided with a 5-vote Majority: 17.8% (15 of 84) 2010 (Kagan) • Cases decided with a 5-vote Majority: 20% (16 of 80) or 22% (18 of 82; Kagan not participating; Court divided 4-4) 2011(stable bench) • Cases decided with a 5-vote Majority: 20% (15 of 75) 2012 (stable bench) • Cases decided with a 5-vote Majority: 29% (23 of 78) 24.2% of all decisions of the Roberts Court have been by 5-4 or 5-3 votes Justice Kennedy in the mix: In the majority in 119 of 144 (82.6%) closely divided decisions

  28. Ideological Spacing of the Justices (2012) Conservative Liberal Scalia (Reagan) Thomas (Bush I) Roberts (Bush II) Alito (Bush II) Ginsburg (Clinton) Breyer (Clinton) Sotomayor (Obama) Kagan (Obama) Kennedy (Reagan) a.k.a. “The Constitution”

  29. The Conflictual 2012 Term of the Court U.S. v. Windsor (2013) • “gay marriage” case; 5-4 (ideological division) Shelby County v. Holder (2013) • VRA §4 case; 5-4 (ideological division) Fisher v. UT (2013) • Affirmative action case, 7-1 (strategic) Florida v. Jardines(2013) • Drug sniffing dog; 5-4 (mixed) Maryland v. King (2013) • DNA cheek swabs, 5-4 (mixed)

  30. What are President Obama’s Second Term Prospects to Shape the Court? It depends… • Opportunities • Vacancies • Who retires/leaves • Disposition of the Senate • Luck

  31. Potential Obama Nominees Criteria • Constitutional Approach • Diversity • Age • Experience • Judicial • Governmental

  32. Opportunities? The Four Oldest Justices: Ginsburg (80) Scalia (77) Kennedy (77) Breyer (74)

  33. The Role (and Relevance) of the Senate Headliner: President Back-Up Band: Senate • Two Pinch Points • Partisan Control • Democrats currently hold 54-46 seat edge • Up from 53-47 • Senate Rules • Cloture • Filibuster

  34. The Present Politics of Confirmation • President: Constitutional Vision and Political Constituencies • Senate • Traditional: • Escalating Trend: Clinton → Bush • Republican Hostility to All Things Obama • Note confirmation votes of SS and EK • Test runs for “when it counts” • Contextual Political: Battle Among Republicans • The Impact of the Tea Party • The “Death” of Compromise • The Need to Reassert After Compromise • 2014 Mid-Term Elections • Primary Politics • Turnout • Force Incumbents to the Right or Left • “Lame Duck” President

  35. Obama’s Opportunities?A Potential Political Blood Bath

  36. And… this “Peculiar Institution” that is the Supreme Court “Ninety Percenters” • O’Connor • Kennedy A Case Study of the Potential Effects of Institutional Constraints, Issue Changes, and Life Tenure “Wayward” Justices • Powell • Souter The Uncertainty of Constrained Choices The President is not Reggie Jackson

  37. The President, the Senate, and the Supreme Court: Teaching The Politics of Separation of Powers

  38. Potential Obama Nominees Applying the Criteria (spit-balling names) • Sitting Federal Judges • Judge Merrick Garland, D.C. Circuit • Judge Mary Murguia, 9th • Judge Jacqueline Hong-Ngoc Nguyen, 9th • Judge Paul Watford, 9th • Judge Diane Wood, 7th • Sitting State Judges • Governmental Officials • Academics

  39. Potential Obama Nominees Applying the Criteria (spit-balling names) • Sitting Federal Judges • Sitting State Judges • Cheri Beasley, NC • Yvette McGee Brown, OH • Patricia Timmons-Goodson, NC • Goodwin Liu, CA • Governmental Officials • Academics

  40. Potential Obama Nominees Applying the Criteria (spit-balling names) • Sitting Federal Judges • Sitting State Judges • Governmental Officials • Attorney General Kamala Harris (CA) • Gov. Jennifer Granholm (MI) • Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN) • Attorney General Lisa Madigan (IL) • Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano • White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler • Academics

  41. Potential Obama Nominees Applying the Criteria (spit-balling names) • Sitting Federal Judges • Sitting State Judges • Governmental Officials • Academics • Heather Gerkin, Yale • Pamela Karlan, Stanford • Neal Katyal, Georgetown • Carol Steiker, Harvard • Kathleen Sullivan, Stanford

More Related