Each of these cases will be huge; together, they offer the justices the opportunity to put their stamp on the law of equality for decades to come. The precedents set in these cases will reverberate for years, shaping the meaning of the Constitution’s promise of equality for all persons.
You are here
The Constitutional Accountability Center on Tuesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit's blockbuster Noel Canning decision, saying the appeals court's invalidation of the president's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board undermines the Constitution's recess appointments clause.
Critics, meanwhile, see Grassley’s plan as little more “pure partisan hypocrisy,” as [vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center Judith] Schaeffer said, predicated on an erroneous assumption about the court’s workload. Currently, the D.C. Circuit has 120 pending cases per authorized judgeship, which Grassley says is too few. But under George W. Bush, Grassley voted to confirm two judges when the court had just 109 cases per judge.
While the Roberts vs. Scalia face-off is mainly about style and tactics, not ideology—they both agree on the goal of reducing the size of the federal government—it’s real and likely to last. For sure they will put aside their differences in many cases, starting in all likelihood with the upcoming ruling in an Alabama county’s challenge to a key part of the Voting Rights Act. Still, the court’s right flank is divided, and that is producing some surprising and important legal victories for the Obama Administration.
Your editorial "Packing the D.C. Circuit" (May 20) accuses President Obama of preparing to "pack" the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit with three judges it "doesn't need." "Packing" is an odd description of the president's constitutional duty to nominate people to fill vacant seats on the federal bench. Congress has authorized this important federal appellate court to have a total of 11 judges, and it currently has only seven.
The good news about increased turnout among African-Americans is worthy of celebration, but it is no reason to scrap the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, which for the last 48 years has played a critical role in realizing the Constitution’s command of voting equality and preventing state-sponsored voting discrimination.
Judith Schaeffer, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, applauded the news of Srinivasan's unanimous confirmation but said that despite the recent break in partisan bickering, she did not expect it to last. "Given a proposal by Senator Grassley to eliminate three seats on the D.C. Circuit – effectively a mass filibuster of President Obama’s future nominees – the comity exhibited by Senate Republicans this morning is not likely to last very long."
On March 2, 2009, all 41 Senate Republicans, including Cornyn, sent a letter to the newly elected President Obama, basically threatening to block judicial nominees from their own states unless they were consulted about and approved those nominees. In his blame-shifting remarks last week and his defense of those remarks since then, Cornyn ignored this letter.
Brianne Gorod has joined the public issue law firm as appellate counsel. She focuses her practice on issues of constitutional law. The Center is a think tank and action center that is dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution's text and history.
Why has partisan obstructionism continued to trump what would ordinarily seem good politics and policy? A major reason is that ACA bitter-enders have insisted that they have an ace in the hole: right-wing federal judges sympathetic to their avid distaste for Obamacare.
CAC Counsel and Message Director Tom Donnelly joined the hosts of Left Jab to discuss the influence of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Elizabeth Wydra, a lawyer at the Constitutional Accountability Center, said the upcoming rulings might even outweigh last year's arguments on health care. "Everyone thought that last term was the term of the century because of the health care arguments," Wydra told AFP. "But this term might be even more historic because the Court is considering the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, one of America's most iconic civil rights laws, the constitutionality of providing for equal opportunity in higher education in the affirmative action case, and a fundamental question of equality in the same-sex marriage cases.