Supreme Court Bingo: How Rulings Might Play Out

[Torie]

Krazen mentioned this in one of his trademarked pithily expressed exhibitions of schadenfeude, but Sean Trende has now crunched the numbers a bit more rigorously as to just who is more likely than not authoring the yet unpublished SCOTUS decisions for this term, and concludes: 1) it bodes ominous for those hoping for a "liberal" interpretation of much of what is extant, and 2) as per usual, Kennedy is the epicenter of the guessing game - a role he just adores no doubt, because Anthony "liberty of the person in both its spatial and more transcendent dimensions" Kennedy is something of a self indulgent attention whore.

[politicallefty]

As a liberal, I'm not terribly concerned here. It's seemed clear from the start that the Court's conservatives will effectively wipe out race-based affirmative action (which is one issue where I lean towards the right). If I had to guess, Roberts takes that decision for himself. I also don't think the Court will go as far as to actually strike down Section 5 of the VRA in its entirety. A more limited ruling going after the coverage formula (i.e. Section 4) seems more likely, which kicks the ball over to Congress. Any of the conservative Justices could conceivably write that opinion. However, if Roberts somehow doesn't take the affirmative action case, he'll definitely at least take the VRA case.

As for the gay marriage cases, I think Kennedy will take at least one of those for himself. If he's willing to go for the equal protection argument (i.e. a 50-state ruling establishing a right to gay marriage), I think he takes that for himself to write. Otherwise, he'll probably write the decision striking down DOMA with no majority reasoning. I really cannot see the Court upholding Prop 8. It probably goes down in some manner, whether it be standing or on the merits, but Kennedy or any of the liberals could easily write that decision.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nor should progressives be all that upset if the Court strikes down the coverage formula in the VRA while not touching the concept of preclearance.  The Court already gave a large hint in an earlier case and practically begged Congress to revisit it, so such a ruling would be no surprise, plus the formula is pathetically out of date and in need of an update.

[muon2]

Nor should progressives be all that upset if the Court strikes down the coverage formula in the VRA while not touching the concept of preclearance.  The Court already gave a large hint in an earlier case and practically begged Congress to revisit it, so such a ruling would be no surprise, plus the formula is pathetically out of date and in need of an update.

I agree from the Court's perspective, but I don't see how this Congress could come to an agreement on a new formula. I could see Sect 5 with no covered jurisdictions as a result.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nor should progressives be all that upset if the Court strikes down the coverage formula in the VRA while not touching the concept of preclearance.  The Court already gave a large hint in an earlier case and practically begged Congress to revisit it, so such a ruling would be no surprise, plus the formula is pathetically out of date and in need of an update.

I agree from the Court's perspective, but I don't see how this Congress could come to an agreement on a new formula. I could see Sect 5 with no covered jurisdictions as a result.

True, they can't even pass a farm bill. *snicker*

[politicallefty]

I agree from the Court's perspective, but I don't see how this Congress could come to an agreement on a new formula. I could see Sect 5 with no covered jurisdictions as a result.

I agree. I don't think this Congress would update Section 4 so as to have an enforceable Section 5. However, that sort of calculus is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to the decision processes of the Supreme Court. As I mentioned before, the obsolescence of Section 4 is essentially the undoing of the VRA. I can see the constitutional arguments with it. I don't think Section 5 itself raises any constitutional issues. If Congress were to extend Section 5 to the entire country, I think it would perfectly consistent with the Constitution. The real issue seems to be the coverage formula, which I think the Court will strike down.