Why is Linda Greenhouse singling out Justice Scalia in this op-ed about the question of religious exemptions to the Affordable Care Act?

The Supreme Court granted cert. in the Hobby Lobby case, in which a business seeks to avoid the requirement to provide coverage for abortifacient-type birth control on the ground that it burdens its free exercise of religion and is not justified by a compelling government interest. This claim is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that was designed to give religious believers rights that the Supreme Court had recently determined were not guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. The case that restricted the scope of the Free Exercise Clause was Employment Division v. Smith, and the majority opinion was written by Antonin Scalia.

That is, of all the Supreme Court Justices who have resisted constitutional arguments for giving special exemptions for religion, the first name on your list should be Antonin Scalia!

But Linda Greenhouse's piece ends:

If the court grants the exemption the companies seek, its decision will most likely come packaged as an exercise in statutory interpretation. Only the old culture warrior, Antonin Scalia, can be counted on to acknowledge the deeper issues in play. But those issues will be there nonetheless, and that’s what makes these cases so compelling.

Packaged as an exercise in statutory interpretation? It is an exercise in statutory interpretation.

Without the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, there would be vanishingly little hope for an exemption. Employment Division v. Smith would almost surely determine that the federal government's law binds everyone in the same way. And you'd be able to thank Justice Scalia for his crisp, hard-core rule that lets legislators do things like that and keeps the judiciary in restraint.

Greenhouse knows all that. She refers and links to Smith, though she doesn't mention that Scalia wrote it. She knows the legal claim is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It's as if there's some secret NYT rulebook that says: When writing about the Supreme Court, always attack Scalia.

The Greenhouse idea is to say this case is really about sex, because opposition to birth control and abortion is really about sex, and then Scalia is supposedly a "culture warrior" on sex issues. But even if you could accept that opposition to abortion and birth control is really about sex, what does Scalia care about sex? He's not a culture warrior! To say so is to distort the opinions of his that accuse other members of the Court of taking sides in the culture war. When he makes that accusation, he's promoting judicial restraint and deference to democratic decisionmaking. Sometimes that restraint manifests itself in cases where legislatures have done things like criminalize sodomy or restrict abortion, so he'd stand back and let social conservatives win. But that would not be because he's a "culture warrior." He's a committed pacifist, looking on, letting the victors in the legislative battle keep their spoils.

But the Hobby Lobby case isn't about narrowly interpreting the Constitution to let legislative majorities have their way. It's a conflict between 2 statutes, and it was absolutely not Antonin Scalia who encouraged giving religious exemptions. It was Congress, which was reacting to Scalia's rejection of constitutional exemptions. The RFRA bill was sponsored in the House by Congressman Chuck Schumer and in the Senate by Teddy Kennedy. (Each had a GOP co-sponsor). The Democrats controlled Congress, but the Republicans all voted for it too (with the sole exception of Jesse Helms).

From the NYT article in 1993 when President Bill Clinton signed RFRA into law:

President Clinton hailed the new law at the signing ceremony, saying that it held government "to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion."...

President Clinton voiced wonder today at this alliance of forces that are often at odds across religious or ideological lines. "The power of God is such that even in the legislative process miracles can happen," he said. 

This is about statutes and the politicos who produce them, not the judges who stand back and let them trip all over themselves pandering to everyone. If the Congress that passed the Affordable Care Act had wanted to exempt it from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it could have done so explicitly. It did not. Why should the Court cut back Congress's absurdly broad RFRA to help it out with what it failed to bother to do with the ACA?

Congress deserves another kick in the ass like the one the unanimous Supreme Court gave it in O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Unio do Vegetal (letting a religious group use the psychedelic drug hoasca despite the ever-so-important federal statute, the Controlled Substances Act).

"Democrats, who filibustered their own share of Republican judicial nominees before they took control of the Senate..."

"... have said that what the minority party has done is to effectively rewrite the law by requiring a 60-vote supermajority threshold for high-level presidential appointments. Once rare, filibusters of high-level nominees are now routine."

Harry Reid moves to end the filibuster for judicial nominees. [UPDATE: They did it!]

Short term: What a flood of new judges we will have! Long term: The American people will see what sort of judges Obama and the Senate majority installs, the GOP will highlight their "left-wing activism" (or whatever it might be called), the American people will respond (perhaps becoming alarmed), a Republican President will (sooner or later) be elected, he or she will feel fully empowered to pick excitingly conservative judges (the Bork kind, not the bland kind), Democrats will rail against their "right-wing activism," the American people will respond (taking sides between the conservative and liberal activist judges and the role of the judiciary in our democracy), and who knows what will happen in the next presidential election and the one after that and after that?

Think about how that long-term game will play out and answer this poll:

Long term, what will be the effect on the American political mind?
	Aversion to right-wing activism will lead to a preference for more liberal judges.
	Aversion to left-wing activism will lead to a preference for more conservative judges.
	Aversion to judicial activism will lead to a preference for blander, more restrained judges.
	Enthusiasm for exciting judges will lead to a preference for better, more interesting judges.
	Enthusiasm for exciting liberal judges will lead to a preference for more of them.
	Enthusiasm for exciting conservative judges will lead to a preference for more of them.
pollcode.com free polls

"Supreme Court Puts New Pressure on Colleges to Justify Affirmative Action."

The Chronicle of Higher Education sums it up in a headline.

But I question "puts." Will schools really feel that pressure? The court receiving Fisher v. University of Texas on remand feels some pressure as it must reexamine — once more, with feeling — the evidence already assembled. The University of Texas will feel some pressure to point out how the Court of Appeals can say what it said before in a newly convincing way — without all that language about deference and presumption of good faith. And maybe eventually this will wend its way back to the Supreme Court. Is anyone else really feeling pressure?

It seems to me that the Court has once again said what it always says about affirmative action and admissions: 1. Here, have some more time, and 2. Could you please speak about what you are doing in a somewhat more palatable way, okay, thanks?

"There is disagreement about whether Grutter was consistent with the principles of equal protection.... But the parties here do not ask the Court to revisit that aspect of Grutter’s holding."

The decorous Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in today's opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas, refraining even from saying the word "overrule."

Revisit... as if we'll be paying a social call.

ADDED: Here's Justice Breyer at oral argument, nailing Fisher's lawyer down that he's not asking to overrule Grutter:




Later, when Fisher's lawyer said "I think you can fashion a result in this case which may or may not have to, quote, 'overrule' Grutter," Justice Sotomayor came out with the memorable line: "So you don't want to overrule Grutter, you just want to gut it":



So did the Court gut Grutter today? No, of course, not. That sounds so brutal. But it laid Grutter out on the carving board and advised the Court of Appeals to sharpen the knives.

ALSO: I'm rereading my own notes from my spring Conlaw2 class, when I taught Grutter along with the oral argument in Fisher and I find this, referring to Justice O'Connor's opinion in Grutter:

Is she damaging the SS test by applying it with deference and not attending to the loose fit between purported goal and policy adopted? (How can you gut it if it lacked guts?)

"The court can put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let that change develop in the political process."

Said Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking yesterday at the University of Chicago law school, ostensibly about Roe v. Wade, but inferentially, perhaps, about same-sex marriage (the issue before the Court right now).

Ginsburg would have rather seen the justices make a narrower decision that struck down only the Texas law that brought the matter before the court. That law allowed abortions only to save a mother's life.

A more restrained judgment would have sent a message while allowing momentum to build at a time when a number of states were expanding abortion rights, she said. She added that it might also have denied opponents the argument that abortion rights resulted from an undemocratic process in the decision by "unelected old men."

Ginsburg told the students she prefers what she termed "judicial restraint" and argued that such an approach can be more effective than expansive, aggressive decisions.

Theodore Olson and David Boies in the WSJ: "... Gays Deserve Equal Rights."

An op-ed on the day of the big oral argument:

[O]ur opponents argue that the growing support for marriage equality means that the courts should leave to the states whether to permit marriage equality sometime in the indefinite future.

But as we proved during a 12-day trial that we won in a California federal district court in 2010, laws like Proposition 8 cause devastating harm to gay and lesbian couples and their children. Exclusion from the institution of marriage marks those couples and their children with a badge of inferiority. The damage this does to their hearts and minds is immeasurable—and the damage it does to all of us and our belief in the nation's ideal of equality is incalculable.

For one to say that the Supreme Court should leave the question of marriage equality to the political processes of the states is to say that states should remain free to discriminate—to impose this pain and humiliation on gay men and lesbians and their children—for as long as they wish, without justification. The Constitution forbids such an indecent result. It did not tolerate it in separate schools and drinking fountains, it did not tolerate it with respect to bans on interracial marriage, and it does not tolerate it here.

"If the court dismisses the Proposition 8 case on standing grounds and strikes DOMA down on federalism grounds..."

"... the combined effect would be to reaffirm America's democratic, decentralized decision-making process without imposing an answer—one way or the other—to the same-sex marriage question," writes lawprof and former federal judge Michael McConnell.

By taking such a path, the court would be spared from imposing a single nationwide definition of marriage as a matter of constitutional law, and from having to rule, for all time, that there is or is not a constitutional right to same-sex marriage — a momentous step that some justices might be reluctant to take. It would leave the issue to the states, at least for the time being. This course might appeal to centrist justices like Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts and Stephen Breyer — and perhaps could even command a unanimous court, which would have a welcome calming influence on the nation's culture wars.

Considerations of these sorts have long been part of the virtue of judicial modesty, too often undervalued by partisans on both sides.

If we welcome the Court's calming of our culture wars — if we believe calming culture wars is a longstanding part of judicial virtue — we ought to compare the benefits of determining once and for all that the choice of marital partner belongs in the hands of the individuals who enter these relationships.

Individual rights matter, and it is the Court's duty to say what they are. If there is no proper case before the Court — if there really is no standing — then the Court has the duty to shut up. But the Court should no more shrink from saying what rights are than it should strain to find them to be something other than what they are.

If the Court could demonstrate its capacity to live up to these duties and if we could believe in the accuracy of these announcements about the substance of our rights, then telling us what our rights are ought to have a calming effect. And yet even if the Court's reputation is so far gone that we can't believe its announcements anymore, the duty remains.

Maybe it won't be calming, but the notion that the Court must calm us, when it is a question of our rights, defies the meaning of rights.

"[I]f the justices don’t rule in favor of gay marriage, it is the Court that will look bad."

Writes Nan Hunter in The Nation, "judging from the press coverage of the briefs."

This perception is an incredible achievement, a brilliant exercise in political framing by the lawyers and legal organizations behind the two cases, who mobilized the amicus show of force. The business brief and the Republican brief, especially, are clearly designed to provide political cover for the Court’s five conservative Justices.

"This perception" — refers, I think, to the way the Court will look in the future if it doesn't rule in favor of gay marriage. This conditional appearance of badness is "an incredible achievement," something that has already taken place. Whose achievement is it? Who is doing the perception? We, the people, presumably. But Hunter does not mean to say that those doing the perceiving have achieved This Perception. She must intend to give credit for the "incredible achievement" to those who have placed This Perception in the minds of the people.

Hunter seems to credit the lawyers who wrote the briefs, but how did the "brilliant exercise in political framing" leap from the briefs into the public's mind? It was the "press coverage of the briefs." The briefs were raw material for the journalists. It is the journalists who performed the "political framing" that created the incredible achievement of This Perception — the journalists, including Hunter, right here, telling you what to make of the raw material generated by lawyers on the anti-gay marriage side. She wants you to know their stuff is "political cover," even as she delights in the "political framing" accomplished by the lawyers on the side she likes. It's all political. Isn't that marvelous? Incredible! Brilliant!

But if it's all political, shouldn't the judiciary restrain itself and allow the political branches of government to go where they will? Implicit in Hunter's cries of delight is the belief that the Court longs for public approval and with The Perception in place — it's there, believe it, all the journalists say it's there — the Justices know there are 2 possible futures, the one where Court looks good and the one where the Court looks bad.

Brilliant!

Listen to the oral argument in the Voting Rights Act case.

Audio here. There's also a summary there of what the case is about, basically whether Congress has the power to continue to require some states, but not others, to get approval from the federal government before they change any election laws. The states are covered based on a formula that looks at how things were in 1972.

I was especially impressed by something Justice Breyer said at 65:42. Transcript (PDF):

If you draw a red line around the States that are in, at least some of those States have a better record than some of the States that are out. So in 1965, well, we have history. We have 200 years or perhaps of slavery. We have 80 years or so of legal segregation. We have had 41 years of this statute. And this statute has helped, a lot. So therefore Congress in 2005 looks back and says don't change horses in the middle of the stream, because we still have a ways to go.

Now the question is, is it rational to do that? And people could differ on that. And one thing to say is, of course this is aimed at States. What do you think the Civil War was about? Of course it was aimed at treating some States differently than others. And at some point that historical and practical sunset/no sunset, renew what worked type of justification runs out. And the question, I think, is has it run out now?

And now you tell me when does it run out? What is the standard for when it runs out? Never? That's something you have heard people worried about. Does it never run out? Or does it run out, but not yet?

Or do we have a clear case where at least it doesn't run out now?

That's a sharp summary to the question and it's fair, though it leans toward upholding what Congress did. I think Breyer framed his question around something Justice Scalia said earlier — which I think is what "you have heard people worried about" refers to. At 50:30 in the audio, Scalia notes that the Court generally leaves "racial questions such as this one... to Congress." But congressional support for reauthorizing the act has increased over the years, even though the need for it has lessened.

[That increased congressional support] is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don't think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there's a good reason for it.... It's -- it's a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.

Scalia is saying the Court needs to act because there is a dysfunction in the political process that keeps Congress from looking rationally at the actual need for the remedy that made so much sense back in 1965. Breyer's response is: Congress is still in the middle of doing what was once badly needed, it's not obvious that the endpoint has been reached, and therefore it's not time yet for the Court to act.

Robert Bork has died.

He was 85.

From the above-linked NYT obituary:

Judge Bork, a bear of a man with a scraggly red beard and untamed frizz on a balding pate who liked to eat, drink and smoke for much of his adult life, handled himself poorly in front of the [Senate Judiciary] committee and failed to give doubters confidence. As Tom Shales, the television critic for The Washington Post, wrote of his testimony: “He looked, and talked, like a man who would throw the book at you — maybe like a man who would throw the book at the whole country.”

See that's what I was just talking about: Liberals used to express abhorrence of law-and-order types.

The NYT obit refers to "the notion that the nominee was somehow unfeeling as a judge." Somehow... a notion... Where, oh, where could it come from?!

This [notion] was amplified when, asked by a sympathetic senator, Alan Simpson, Republican of Wyoming, why he wanted to serve on the Supreme Court, Judge Bork replied that it would be “an intellectual feast.”

And that was it, the worst answer ever given to any question in the history of the United States. Intellectual feast! The feast turned out to be a feeding frenzy for the liberal media. Why, they're still picking kinky reddish beard hairs out of their back molars! Burrrrp! Tasty! What a time! And no Supreme Court nominee has said one interesting thing since. Every single one has promised to be a good little judge who would never ever do anything but serve humbly and modestly deciding the cases according to the law.

You think it was interesting that John Roberts said he saw himself as an umpire, calling balls and strikes? That proves my point! I know, Clarence Thomas, "high-tech lynching," but that wasn't about doing the judicial work, so I'm excluding that from the point, which is that they all learned what not to do from Bork. Presidents learned to avoid even picking someone Borkish, so no one was allowed to look weird, speak quirkly, seem like an intellectual with ideas of his own, it would just be bland blandness served atop a steaming pile of blandness. That is: Not tasty! As a live-blogger of nomination hearings, I want to know: Where's my intellectual feast?

ADDED: When C-SPAN put its entire archive up on-line, the first thing I looked up to relive was the Bork hearings: