Deepak Gupta Gets Call to Argue Position Trump's DOJ Abandoned
By Tony Mauro
If doing something twice in a row makes a trend, then the court launched a significant one on Monday afternoon.
July 9, 2018 PrawfsBlawg -
The following post is by Matthew Seligman, a VAP at Cardozo. It is a short version of his new paper.
In the aftermath of Justice Kennedy’s retirement announcement, several legal scholars have suggested that Democrats should add seats to the Supreme Court when they retake the Presidency and Congress. Jed Shugerman, for example, advocated expanding the Court to 15 if Trump’s replacement nominee is confirmed, on the ground that no President under investigation for conduct that plausibly could lead to impeachment has appointed a Justice who might rule in his own case. In addition to that conflict-of-interest principle, Ian Samuel suggests packing the courts in response to prior rounds of Republican hardball—most notably the Republican Senate’s refusal to consider Judge Garland’s nomination to succeed Justice Scalia. Samuel is aware of the obvious implication of initiating a cycle of retaliatory court packing, as Richard Primus explained in the Harvard Law Review Blog in response to Steven Calabresi and Shams Hirji’s proposal last year that Republicans expand the courts of appeals by dozens or even hundreds of judgeships. An escalating cycle of packing and re-packing the courts would offer fleeting advantage to one side and then the other (assuming neither side is able to permanently entrench its political dominance). And the cost would be steep: undermining the legitimacy, public acceptance, and even basic functioning of the courts.