Umpire John
(and Virginia Redistricting Opinion)
Judge Sotomayor, before becoming a justice, noted that appellate judges make policy. They set forth rules while district judges largely determine facts.
As Lawrence Hurley reported for NBC News, Roberts continued: “I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do. I would say that’s the main difficulty. “
What is a “political actor?” Let’s go to the dictionary:
political
adjective
po·lit·i·cal pə-ˈli-ti-kəl
1a: of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government
b: of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2: of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3: organized in governmental terms
political units
4: involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system
political prisoners
The Supreme Court plays a significant role in setting forth policy. It does so in ways with many political implications. Fitting those definitions.
The term “political” is disfavored by many judges. It sounds like they are “politicians” who are shady sorts. Judges are supposed to be above the fray. They are special.
We accept too much the idea that politicians, who represent us, are allowed to be “dirty.” It helps Trump some since “they are all bad, right?”
John is setting forth an artificial dynamic here. The Supreme Court has a political role. His saying after the recent Voting Rights Act opinions is even harder to take.
They’re not “purely” political actors. But they nevertheless are quasi-political actors. So long as judges are selected and socially disciplined through partisan methods—and enjoy the equivalent of national policymaking power—any other description is misleading.
Robert L. Tsai @robertltsai.bsky.social [law professor]
Each branch of government has different roles in our political system.
Courts have a role that is more independent in certain respects. They, however, are not just off on the side, outside of the political system.
Honesty can help us determine how to react, including what sort of reforms of the courts should be sought. It can also provide sarcastic scorn when it is due.
==
Virginia Supreme Court Ruling: A 4-3 opinion today (for those in the know, not surprisingly) overturned the popular referendum to redistrict as a response to Republican activities, repeatedly without such public input. A dubious call.
Some are calling out the judges for letting the election go on and only now overturning the measure. The state, citing precedent, asked for a post-election review.
It looks bad, but at first blush, it does not appear to be a scam. Also, the majority opinion cites a comment from the oral argument where the state counsel acknowledges that the court had the duty to decide the matter.
The ultimate problem is that you’d better be darn sure when you do something like this. This 4-3 opinion, written by a conservative judge, likely doesn’t meet the test.
The ruling is “political.” We shall see what happens next. There is the Ohio Republican “nice ruling, but nah” approach. I also saw people argue that, given the times, the Democrats will still win some races, even in some gerrymandered states.
We need national regulation of gerrymandering and mid-decade districting. I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament. But it is all so ugly. An ill wind blows.