-
Marty nicely games out the various approaches the court might take in the upcoming Guantanamo cases. He indicates which outcomes would be likely to require congressional responses and which would leave the status quo on firm enough legal grounds as to make it legally unnecessary for Congress to respond. But there's another possibility that is worth considering. Even if the court reaches a holding that leaves everything that is currently in place in such a state that there is no legal need for Congress to act in response, it is entirely possible that a justice or two will write a dissenting or concurring opinion that will signal approval of various proposed legislative reforms, including the proposal for there to be a National Security Court. And if that happens, look for proponents of such measures to quickly spin such judicial dicta as being tantamount to calls by the court for a legislative response. I think that, in this context, such musing would be quite inappropriate, but even still, it might have the effect of galvanizing political support for a proposal that, as Deborah suggests, should engender lots of skepticism. Neal Katyal has elsewhere written about the role of judges as advice-givers (see his 1998 article in the Stanford Law Review, which, alas, I can find no link for). And it's definitely one way in which judges sometimes can work to shape the political process, prohibitions against advisory opinion notwithstanding. I'll be watching to see if the court—or, more likely, any of its members—see fit to assume that problematic role here.
-
JUSTICE STEVENS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice KENNEDY join.
That's from Crawford v. Marion County.
It reveals yet again just how influential Justice Kennedy is: He's such a swinging justice that the opposite poles now won't even let him swing.
And it reveals yet again just how fractured the Court really is. The Chief can stave off division in important cases only by deciding as little as possible. But now it appears, that approach doesn't even really work: it only gets you three, rather than nine. So much for dreams of a new era of good feelings.
-
Interesting as the debate over FISA has been, I think this report is important -- the first really serious empirical study of inclusionary zoning, the mechanism whereby localities try to use their zoning powers not to exclude low income housing but to ensure its production. The study suggests that a standard line against inclusionary zoning measures is wrong; the evidence indicates that efforts to create affordable housing through regulation do not ironically impede its production, anymore than minimum wage laws invariably reduce emploment opportuinties. In any event, you can read it here.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?