The Supreme Court "sidesteps" the Pledge question? Year after year after year, thousands of people petition the United States Supreme Court for redress of grievances. The Supreme Court entertains a very small number of cases, ostensibly those which raise the most significant issues of constitutional law:
Every year, the Supreme Court hears about 100 cases (in recent years, that number has dwindled down to about 90 cases per year). This is only a small fraction of the many cases (about 7,000 a year) filed before it.The issue of "standing", whether or not an individual has the right to commence a particular lawsuit, is a pedestrian issue.
So when the United States Supreme Court takes a matter that many of the people in this nation perceive as of great import - whether they detest or support the lower court decision - and then vacates it on a technicality without addressing the constitutional questions, there is good cause to ask, "What's really going on?" Were they really convinced by the "lack of standing" argument - or did they regret taking a contentious case, and scramble for any way out which would let them avoid upholding an unpopular lower court ruling?
The Washington Post applauds the sidestep: Resolving a case on grounds of the legal standing of a litigant always has the feel of a cop-out. But the doctrine actually serves a vital function in the U.S. judicial system, particularly in constitutional challenges to laws and government policies. It prevents the courts from considering complaints unnecessarily.Um... when last I checked, the courts (including the Supreme Court) had already entertained the complaint. Exactly what efficiency was gained by throwing out the case after a trial court ruling, an appellate ruling, an en banc appellate rehearing and ruling, certiorari to the Supreme Court, oral argument before the Supreme Court, and this decision (with an accompanying concurring opinions which argue for resolution of the case on its merits.) What efficiency is gained by failing to apply the Supreme Court's standard of deference to lower fedeeral courts' interpretation of state law, pursuant to which the standing issue had already been resolved? If that standard has now been abandoned, we have lost efficiency.
ReplyDeleteIt appears from the concurring opinions, authored by Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas, that the original four votes to take the case were theirs along with that of Justice Scalia, who recused himself after making public comments on the merits of the case. Perhaps with Scalia, the four could have convinced a fifth Justice to join them - they may have been hoping for Kennedy, a devout Catholic - but with the apparent probability of a 4-4 split (resolving nothing, while leaving the lower court decision intact) or a 5-3 decision upholding the lower court ruling, the Court went into "damage control mode".
The pundits who like this ruling seem to like it because it avoided bringing a contentious issue to the forefront. Perhaps they see that it would likely have become an "election issue". Perhaps the Supreme Court would have done better to have waited before taking this issue, until other federal circuits had ruled on the subject. But "punting", as the Post put it, should not be confused with wise restraint. The Supreme Court did accept the case, and at best prolonged this controversy, which I am sure will soon renew itself when a motivated group or individual brings yet another lawsuit in a California federal court.
An editorial from a West Virginia paper inappropriately named "The Intelligencer" tells us that because three Justices, in concurring opinions, deemed the Pledge constitutional in its present Congressionally approved form, "there should be no doubt that the nation's highest court was sending a message on Monday. It was simply that there is nothing wrong with reminding Americans of the strong role that religion plays in their nation."
ReplyDelete[Insert eyeroll here]