//  6/19/19  //  Commentary

We have a new op-ed in the Washington Post responding to arguments that the Supreme Court shouldn't pay any mind to questions of judicial legitimacy.  Here's how it begins:

It is illegitimate to consider legitimacy. So say many conservatives who seem terrified that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. might care about public perception of the U.S. Supreme Court. Haunted by his vote upholding the Affordable Care Act — a vote they view as unprincipled — they insist that only a weak-willed, weak-kneed judge would ever deviate from right-wing orthodoxy to preserve the court’s legitimacy. They urge the chief justice to stick with the conservative party line and rise above the supposedly cynical warnings that this term’s biggest cases could harm the judiciary.

These arguments are profoundly hypocritical. Conservative lawyers and judges have long raised concerns about judicial legitimacy to protest progressive rulings on abortion, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, partisan gerrymandering and many other issues. In Obergefell v. Hodges, for instance, then-Justice Antonin Scalia warned that the court’s decision recognizing a constitutional right to marriage equality “has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

But that was then, and this is now. Calls to be mindful of judicial legitimacy are passe; conservatives demand activism of the court they believe they have captured. No matter that many of those same conservatives bulldozed every relevant norm on the way (especially when they defended the Senate’s refusal to hold a hearing on Merrick Garland’s nomination). Or that they weakened the court’s credibility in doing so. The only thing that matters is that they “won” — and that nothing stands in the way of conservative outcomes.

To be sure, concerns about legitimacy can be overstated. Most cases, even important ones, do not threaten the court’s viability as a forum for resolving pressing disputes.

Yet some issues really do strike at the court’s legitimacy. The challenge to the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census is one of them.

Keep reading here.


Versus Trump: Going to Church In Times of COVID

12/7/20  //  Commentary

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the recent Supreme Court decisions requiring states to allow in-person religious services even while other gatherings can be banned. The pair gently disagree about how hard or easy these cases are. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Versus Trump: Legal Update + The GSA Travesty

11/17/20  //  Commentary

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the status of Trump's legal challenges to the election (going nowhere) and the Trump Administration's dangerous and illegal refusal to designate Biden as the President-elect and therefore give his team resources for a smooth transition. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Trump's Lawyers Should Be Sanctioned

11/11/20  //  Commentary

Lawyers who bring cases without evidence solely to harass or delay should be sanctioned. It's what Justice Scalia would have wanted.