The Vicious Entrenchment Circle: Thoughts on a Lifetime with a Republican-Controlled Court

[swag]

Professor Lederman was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010, and an Attorney Advisor in OLC from 1994-2002. From 1988 to 2004, he was an attorney at Bredhoff & Kaiser, where his practice consisted principally of federal litigation, including appeals, on behalf of labor unions, employees and pension funds. In 2008, with David Barron, he published a two-part article in the Harvard Law Review examining Congress’s authority to regulate the Commander in Chief’s conduct of war.


https://balkin.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-vicious-entrenchment-circle.html


...The new majority will likely take significant steps, for instance, to sanction further Republican-enacted limits on the franchise; to bless efforts that skew the electoral system strongly in favor of Republican majorities; and to invalidate laws of other kinds (campaign finance regulations; agency fees; affirmative action initiatives; etc.) that tend, on the whole, to strengthen Democratic constituencies. In other words, we should expect to see plenty more decisions to add to an already imposing list that includes, e.g., Bush v. Gore; Crawford/Husted; Gill/Benisek, et al.; Citizens United/WRtL (and other campaign finance cases); Shelby County; Parents Involved; Janus; Epic/Concepcion, et al.; etc.

And then there are the many cases the Court majority will likely decide, invoking several different constitutional provisions and doctrines--the Free Speech Clause (especially); perhaps the Property and Contract Clauses; extra-textual federalism limits; limiting constructions of Congress’s post-Civil War enforcement powers; perhaps the Free Exercise Clause (and certainly RFRA); etc.—to narrow the scope of constitutionally permissible initiatives if and when the Democrats ever do again obtain majorities in the political branches.

The new five-Justice majority is also likely to dramatically enhance executive authority, in both foreign and domestic affairs, including by, inter alia, endorsing “unitary executive” theories (rejected by all but one of the Justices on even the Rehnquist Court) and statutory interpretations (see, e.g., the SG's aggressive brief in Lucia) that will constrict agency independence; perhaps re-asserting a more robust nondelegation doctrine; discounting the role of international law in construing the President’s war powers (see Justice Kavanaugh’s remarkable opinion in al Bihani, discussed here); applying extraordinary deference to the President in areas of foreign affairs, national security and immigration, even in cases (e.g., Trump v. Hawaii) where the presidential rationales are transparently pretextual.

In all of these ways, the Court will (probably) strengthen the ability of the Republican Party to entrench electoral power, and place obstacles in the way of future Democratic Presidents and legislatures to accomplish their desired substantive ends, despite the fact that the nation’s demographics and its electorate appear to be heading inexorably in the opposite direction.


. . . much more at the link

[delisen]

1. This is good information. thank you.

[manor321]

2. Exactly

It will be much worse than people think. And huge numbers of people won't understand why or how it is happening.

[dalton99a]

3. This is a must read.