I genuinely wonder what Justice Roberts is thinking in hearing arguments in April on United States v. Texas, the challenge to President Obama’s change to deportation policy? That would suggest a ruling in June, just as the election is starting to heat up.
Does he want to get it out of the way? Is he doing his best to make it an election issue? I don’t get it.
Who says that Justice Roberts specifically wants to rule on this issue? What I’ve heard is that as long as 4 justices consent to hear a case, it can go forward. It’s not revealed, however, who those 4 are. In the case of this particular supreme court I would hazard to say it was the 4 liberal jurists who wanted Obama to have a go at the constitutionality of his immigration EO.
He controls when it goes on the docket.
He controls when it goes on the docket.
But could he delay it for a full year? That sounds excessive.
And this is absolutely an issue that should be decided post-haste. If we’re going to give the President infinite powers to do whatever-the-fuck he wants whenever-the-fuck he wants to, let’s determine that before the next Presidential election so voters can decide on their dictator of choice.
I don’t know that it’s ever been tested. Chief Justice is kind of an absolute monarch.
I’m not familiar with the CJ’s docket-handling, but I suspect he is subject to informal controls. Besides, hearing the case in April allows it to be decided by the end of the term in June, but there is still the possibility that it won’t be ready or steps might be taken to push it back to the next year.
The only strategic timing discussion I am aware of was between Justice Blackman and his law clerk regarding an abortion case being decided at the same time during the 1992 election cycle. Concerned about the future of Roe v. Wade, Blackman was advised that if he thought that the reversal of Roe v. Wade was inevitable, it was best to make sure it was decided that term in order to galvanize women’s votes in November. I don’t know what Blackman thought and he would have limited ability to delay the decision anyway, but the conservative justices appear to have split and rendered a decision that recognized the “essential holding” of Roe v. Wade, while overruling its particulars.
That said, I don’t think Roberts is thinking along those lines. This case is not centered on a controversial judicial opinion with its promise of continuing challenge and focus on packing the courts. If he’s thinking about fixing a political issue that is melting down the political branches, he will be seeking to involve the courts in setting limits on what the government can or cannot do with respect to immigration.
I suspect that after his rulings on the ACA he needs to re-establish conservative credibility. I would expect a 5-4 ruling against Obama.
Steve
If I were in publishing, I would pitch a piece called The Political Branch on the Roberts Court in the Obama era (basically an update of Toobin’s book). Because that’s what the Court has been during this time – or has continued to be, if we accept that that is what it has been for ages.