The Supreme Court in Crisis: A Good Read, But No Crisis

RNLA Member Donald Daugherty recently conducted a book review published by the Federalist Society on American Justice 2017: The Supreme Court in Crisis by Kimberly Robinson.

Ms. Robinson's book offers a summary and background insight into the 2016 Term of the Supreme Court by describing various themes from the term, while highlighting various "crises" that allegedly arose--largely referencing the impact of an eight-person bench, with the absence of Justice Scalia for the majority of the term, prior to the swearing in of Justice Gorsuch.

Mr. Daugherty explains:

Robinson reviews controversial cases that the Court delayed deciding or sidestepped altogether. Most notable is Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, for which certiorari was granted a month before Justice Scalia passed in February 2016, but oral argument not held until April 19, 2017—nine days after Neil Gorsuch was sworn in. Robinson also points to the Court declining to review cases involving changes to voting requirements in Texas and North Carolina in the wake of 2013’s Voting Rights Act decision, Shelby County v. Holder. Chief Justice Roberts took the unusual step of explaining why the Court denied certiorari in those cases, which Robinson interprets as protesting too much in anticipation of criticism that the Court was trying to avoid difficult decisions. . . 

Due in large part to its cautious approach, the 2016 Term was marked by an unusually high degree of consensus and a greater-than-usual number of unanimous decisions, with only two dissents read from the bench. Along with the absence of divisive, blockbuster cases, the relative consensus among the justices makes it hard to agree that the Supreme Court was in “crisis.”. . . The Court wisely and prudently chose to put off some of the biggest cases until it returned to full strength. This is not a weakness or shortcoming, as Robinson seem[s] to imply, but reflects a humility that is less often seen in the two political branches. Wisdom and prudence do not necessarily make for an interesting read, however, so the book instead repeatedly refers to various “crises.”. . .

Mr. Daugherty also explains that Robinson's book offers the insight that the U.S. Supreme Court operates in the current political climate, even if it chooses not to wield political power forcefully:

The book’s most interesting chapter is “Courting Politics,” which discusses the Roberts Court’s so-called “one last chance” doctrine for resolving tough constitutional issues on narrow grounds in order to avoid wreaking immediate, widespread havoc; in such decisions, the Court often warns in dicta that without some legislative or other non-judicial fix, the outcome could be different the next time it is faced with the issue. Robinson argues that decisions causing momentous, social disruption risk exposing the Court to criticism that it is merely another political actor. Beginning with Justice Owen Roberts “switch in time” that mooted FDR’s court-packing plan and ended the Lochner era, Robinson cites other possible examples of a politicized Court—Bush v. Gore, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. At the same time, although the Court is sometimes fairly accused of deciding issues better left to the political branches or the states, this was not a problem in the 2016 Term, and this chapter has little to do with the term specifically. Further emphasizing the anti-climactic nature of the term . . . .

Robinson's book, in closing, offers a preview of what to expect this year as the 2017 Term begins to wind down, but it contrasts one of her themes of the book. Mr. Daugherty notes:

[T]he final chapter’s title—“The Calm Before the Storm”—is at odds with Robinson’s contention that the Court was in crisis during the 2016 Term. Looking ahead, Robinson describes the many high profile cases currently before the Court. Besides Janus and challenges to the third version of the temporary travel ban, the Court is now considering important post-Obergefell issues arising under the First Amendment in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, as well as the political blockbuster Gill v. Whitford, which could curb partisan gerrymandering and drastically change how states approach redistricting. Although there is no dispute that the 2017 Term will exceed its predecessor in excitement and controversy, however, Robinson succeeds in turning a sleepy term into an interesting read, even without any real crisis.

Of course, the RNLA will continue to highlight major cases of interest as they come down from now through June. Recently, we have highlighted a few cases we foresee as being highlights of the 2017 Term as well as the redistricting case (Gill v. Whitford) and the recent oral arguments of Janus (union dues v. free speech).

Authors of "Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign" to Speak at RNLA Luncheon on Friday in Washington, D.C.

This Friday, May 19, the RNLA will be hosting a luncheon in Washington, D.C., featuring Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, authors of the bestselling book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign.  

According to a National Review article reviewing the book, Shattered is "absolutely gripping reading, chock full of juicy, revelatory reporting about the Democratic nominee’s campaign that you really wish you had read during the actual campaign."

Allen and Parnes, through access from insiders on the Clinton campaign, explain missed opportunities on the campaign trail and other political misfires that turned from what looked like a winnable race, to a devastating loss.  They even explain how Team Clinton's public appearance was extremely different behind the scenes, stating:

Over the course of a year and a half, in interviews with more than one hundred subjects, we started to piece together a picture that was starkly at odds with the narrative the campaign and the media were portraying publicly.  Hillary’s campaign was so spirit-crushing that her aides eventually shorthanded the feeling of impending doom with a simple mantra: We’re not allowed to have nice things.

Of course, the media failed to mention the infighting of the campaign, which is one of the reasons why America seemed so stunned that President Trump overwhelmingly won on Election night.  The RNLA looks forward to hearing first-hand from Allen and Parnes how and why Clinton lost, and other insights from their book Shattered.

To purchase a ticket for Friday's noon luncheon at Tony Cheng's Mongolian Restaurant, click here.  To purchase a table, please email Deputy Director Brittany Walker at walker@republicanlawyer.net.  

Time for Democrats to Accept Last November's Election Results

There are a lot of excuses STILL coming from the Democrats on losing the last election.  Last night President Trump had enough and responded. 

FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds! The phony...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2017

...Trump/Russia story was an excuse used by the Democrats as justification for losing the election. Perhaps Trump just ran a great campaign?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2017

The Washington Post, no fan of President Trump, interviewed a couple of “experts” who agreed, at least in part:

“I think there’s a good degree of excellence that came out of the Trump  campaign,” [Jerri Anne] Henry said, “of understanding and tapping into a grass-roots audience.”

Silk agreed that it wasn’t just a good message from Trump’s team, but a much savvier sense of how to get that message out. . . .

I asked Henry and Silk to respond to Trump’s assertion about the greatness of his campaign in one sentence. 

“They took maximum advantage of the moment. They understood better than their opponent what the electorate was hungry for. They delivered messages through modern communication channels better than the entire Republican field and, ultimately, were successful in winning the presidency,” Silk said. “So, yeah. I think they ran a good campaign.”

From the considerable effort to undermine the election to the refusing to give credit, it is well past time for Democrats to accept and say two words: “President Trump.”  

NRSC Chairman Roger Wicker to Speak at the RNLA Washington, D.C. Chapter Luncheon

RNLA's DC Chapter is hosting a lunch on Friday, March 18, with Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), Senator Roger Wicker.  Sen. Wicker will discuss upcoming key Senate races across the country and how the Republicans will maintain the majority in 2016.  The lunch is at Tony Cheng’s Mongolian Restaurant at 12:00 PM.  

When the Supreme Court decided to strike down Section IV of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional, Sen. Wicker said: 

Today's decision is a good step in returning power back to the states. As the Court noted, the criteria being used by the Justice Department to implement portions of the "Voting Rights Act' are outdated. I welcome today's ruling to treat all states equally under the law and hope it will finally clear the way for Mississippi to implement our commonsense voter identification laws in a way that is fair to all citizens. 

Sen. Wicker has represented Mississippi in the United States Senate since December 2007. During his time in the Senate, Wicker has championed pro-growth policies to create jobs and has worked to reduce spending, limit federal overreach, and maintain a strong national defense. 

He is a member of the Senate Republican leadership team, serving as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he chairs the Subcommittee on Seapower. Wicker is also a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, serving as chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet; Budget Committee; Environment and Public Works Committee; and the Rules Committee. He is co-chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and Chair of the Committee on Political Affairs and Security in the OSCE’s Parliamentary Assembly. Wicker is also a member of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Congressional Board of Visitors.

Buckley. Defender of First Amendment Rights, Slayer of Political Equality Ideology.

Buckley v. Valeo has recently turned forty. This case may not be as recognizable as others in our lifetime, but its imperfect yet continuing role of protecting our rights under the First Amendment is unquestioned. One key but often forgotten aspect of Buckley is how it protects us from forced equality of speech. Former RNLA campaign finance blogger Paul Jossey points out that without it, the absurd idea of political equality in this country would have continued to proliferate.

On the positive side Buckley’s wending opinion cemented its place in First Amendment lore with a single line: “[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” Buckley thus rejected “political equality”—equity being decided by those in power—as a legitimate reason to subjugate individual speech rights. Instead government could only curtail speech in order to combat “corruption” or its “appearance.”

By forbidding government from rationing speech through equality, Buckley unshackled the political marketplace that has since flourished with competing and diverse voices. Contrarily the Court’s stance provided perpetual heartburn for a generation of would-be speech policers. Politicians who abhor criticism cite equality as a rationale to abate individual First Amendment rights. Academics—particularly the Harvard law faculty—have supplied intellectual support for their fight. 

Buckley changed the political landscape. In addition, it continues to protect our First Amendment rights by rejecting the irrationality of political equality in the United States political system.

Virginia Republicans Are Striving to Ensure Virginia Elections Work

The Virginian-Pilot published a strongly worded article claiming that "Virginia elections don't work." The article bemoans multiple hour waits to cast a ballot and low voter turnout. The article then turns its attention to voter ID which it says is "part of a larger national effort by Republicans to specifically discourage groups that tend to vote for Democrats," and slows things down even more. Confusion about voter ID rules, problems with absentee ballots, and faulty voting machines marred the November election according to the article. Apparently, even Gov. McAuliffe had his vote momentarily delayed by a worker who mistakenly questioned the governor's address.

In response to this rather glum report on the state of affairs in Virginia, Don Palmer, a former member of the Virginia board of elections, painted a brighter picture. Palmer points out:

"It is easier and more convenient to register to vote. Due to registration data-sharing with other states and cleaner voter rolls, Virginia’s voter registration data is more accurate and less likely to cause unnecessary lines in our polling places. Virginians can register to vote online and instantaneously submit their information directly to state and local election officials."

With regard to voter ID, Palmer  explains that "[t]he photo ID legislation has been implemented with few hiccups. Not a single voter has been turned away. If necessary, voters are told how to obtain a free ID. Showing a photo ID to an election official takes only a few seconds out of the time it takes to vote and allows an elections officer to confirm every voter’s identity," and "[t]o increase public awareness, the Virginia Department of Elections will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on photo ID training and voter education outreach this presidential election year."

Finally, Palmer cites efforts by the state legislature to solve the problem with lines at the poll: To address the lines that occasionally occur at some precincts, the General Assembly passed bills (HB2062 and SB1062) requiring five poll workers and two voting tabulators in polling places with more than 4,000 registered voters. An exception to the new law allows local governing bodies to vote to opt out based on proven, historic low turnout or low waiting times in precincts. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Terry McAuliffe. It went into effect on July 1. Many of the state’s localities that have had long lines of voters have modernized their voting equipment. The cities of Richmond and Virginia Beach and the counties of Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William, among others, have purchased new voting equipment, which will be ready for voters in 2016."

Hillary Clinton's Signature Accomplishment? Not Even She Knows.

During CNN's Republican primary debate this past Wednesday, Carly Fiorina remarked: "[i]f you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name an accomplishment of Hillary Clinton." Exactly what Hillary Clinton has accomplished after almost 40 years in public life is a question Ms. Fiorina, among others, has asked before. Interestingly, it seems not even Clinton herself can provide a satisfactory answer to this question.

As Politico points out, Clinton has had the opportunity to tout her accomplishments on several occasions, but never seems able to provide a solid answer. She quickly changed the subject when asked by Diane Sawyer to name her "marquee achievement," and, when speaking at a women's forum in New York, Clinton responded to a question about her "proudest achievement as Secretary of State" by comparing her performance to running a leg in a relay race.

This question isn't just difficult for Hillary to answer; when asked to identify "one tangible achievement" that came about during Clinton's tenure, Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, responded, saying: "I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one." Adding fuel to the fire, a focus group of her supporters in Iowa lacked confidence when it came to identifying any actual Clinton accomplishments, with one participant saying: "I really can’t name anything off the top of my head."

So, Hillary, just what have you accomplished? No one seems to have an answer, and the voting public would love to know.