The Gamble Case

Avatar

gabriel conroy

Gabriel Conroy [pseudonym] is an ex-graduate student. He is happily married with no children and has about a million nieces and nephews. The views expressed by Gabriel are his alone and do not necessarily reflect those of his spouse or employer.

Related Post Roulette

8 Responses

  1. Avatar Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    Worth noting: Gamble achieved some prominence on the Court’s docket because of a rumor circulated in the opposition to the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh that Kavanaugh had indicated support for using the case to advance abolition of the Dual Sovereignty doctrine. This was supposedly to pre-empt the New York Attorney General’s investigation of various legally questionable activities within the constellation of the President’s past dealings, such as misuse of the Trump Foundation or suspected money laundering.

    IMO the idea that a Supreme Court Justice would be appointed to vote yes or no on a particular question that is not abortion is attributing fourth-dimensional chess stratagems to ideologues who are actually simply playing checkers: their goal is to get as many conservatives on the Federal bench as possible. Those conservatives needn’t agree on all issues right down the line but left to their own devices they will line up and vote for the desired policy result on almost all issues, almost all of the time.

    The only real litmus test out there that I see is abortion, and the only real question there is whether this or that jurist will stick with the existing agenda of whittling Federal guarantees of abortion rights down to meaninglessness or would more aggressively overturn Roe and Casey altogether.

    Gamble is actually a very interesting procedural and doctrinal case, but as with so many cases of that nature, the smart money will predict either no doctrinal change, or an incremental nudge in existing doctrine. Putting your marker on “sweeping overhaul” or “overturn” is a bit like throwing your money on the table and shouting “Yo ‘Leven!” in that you might win and get a big return of prediction props, but most of the time you’re going to lose.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      IMO the idea that a Supreme Court Justice would be appointed to vote yes or no on a particular question that is not abortion

      You misspelled “vote suppression”. Shelby County was only the first step.Report

      • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        There are days when I simply wonder if some of the decisions that are returning power to the states are simply about (a) holding enough Senate seats to keep the Democrats from getting to 60 again, and (b) none of us Justices, or our kids, or our grandkids are going to live in those states. Test question, perhaps: When the Trump EPA’s proposed rule stripping California of its authority to issue tougher air pollution rules than the feds do, will the Court find for California (and the several states where the Justices live and work that have followed California)?Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      Yes and no. I think there is a reasonable plausibility that Trump and company found Kavannaugh to be more deferential to executive powers and authority than other candidates for the post.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        McConnell didn’t want Kavannaugh to be nominated at all because of his paper trail. Trump saw Kavannaugh as his man. It could be because Trump approaches the Presidency as a monarchal position. His understanding could simply be that President gets to nominate to the Supreme Court whoever he likes, which was historically true. Or it could be that Kavannaugh as opinions about executive power that Trump likes.Report

    • Avatar gabriel conroy in reply to Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      For what it’s worth, the bulk of Ken White’s post is about exactly the “fourth-dimensional” strategem you critique in your comment. His take is very similar to yours.Report

    • Avatar gabriel conroy in reply to Burt Likko
      Ignored
      says:

      Gamble is actually a very interesting procedural and doctrinal case, but as with so many cases of that nature, the smart money will predict either no doctrinal change, or an incremental nudge in existing doctrine.

      You’re probably right. I can see the court saying that in the specific case can be distinguished somehow.Report

  2. Avatar Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    Bless Ken White & keep him rational!Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *