{"id":287,"date":"2012-11-06T11:56:15","date_gmt":"2012-11-06T15:56:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=287"},"modified":"2013-09-20T11:58:45","modified_gmt":"2013-09-20T15:58:45","slug":"new-term-may-answer-questions-about-supreme-courts-dynamic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2012\/11\/06\/new-term-may-answer-questions-about-supreme-courts-dynamic\/","title":{"rendered":"New Term May Answer Questions About Supreme Court\u2019s Dynamic"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\u00a9<\/a>
\u00a9 Piers Morgan\/CNN<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

by Lauren Gailey, Staff Writer<\/p>\n

WASHINGTON, DC – As the United States Supreme Court settles into its 2012-2013 term, the Court faces not just questions of law, but questions about its own internal dynamics as well.<\/div>\n

Last June, the Court announced its controversial decision to uphold the Obama administration\u2019s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act \u2013 a decision made possible only when Chief Justice John G. Roberts, a conservative appointed by George W. Bush, crossed ideological lines to uphold the constitutionality of the Act\u2019s individual mandate. In doing so, the Chief Justice disappointed conservatives nationwide. It was widely rumored that he disappointed his conservative Court colleagues as well, particularly Justice Antonin Scalia.<\/p>\n

Rumors of a feud between Roberts and Scalia abounded throughout the summer, despite the latter\u2019s denial of any infighting during a rare interview on CNN\u2019s \u201cPiers Morgan Tonight\u201d on July 18. Scalia told Morgan that he was offended by the public criticism of Roberts, especially the allegations that the Chief Justice\u2019s vote in the case was politically motivated. Emphasizing that the Court is \u201cnot a political institution,\u201d Scalia said, \u201cI don\u2019t think any of my colleagues . . . vote the way they do for political reasons.\u201d<\/p>\n

Despite Justice Scalia\u2019s denials, the tales of a feud persisted, culminating in September with the publication of The Oath<\/i>, Jeffrey Toobin\u2019s book on interplay between the Roberts Court and the Obama administration. Toobin, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and writer for The New Yorker<\/i>, fanned the flames of the rumors, calling Scalia \u201cfurious\u201d and \u201cenraged\u201d at Roberts for switching his crucial vote. Toobin claimed that the dispute was far from one-sided, as Roberts had changed sides precisely because<\/i> he was unhappy with Scalia and the other conservatives for their insistence on striking down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.<\/p>\n

The validity of these rumors, however, ultimately remains rooted in speculation. During an October 15 appearance at a Duquesne Law School Federalist Society event, Brian Fitzpatrick, a Vanderbilt Law professor and former clerk to Justice Scalia, addressed a similar issue when Dean Ken Gormley asked him whether the notoriously politically fraught Bush v. Gore<\/a><\/i><\/b> decision in 2000 negatively affected the climate of the Court. Professor Fitzpatrick, who clerked during the term following that case, indicated that while some hard feelings lingered among the law clerks, the justices themselves displayed no such tension and remained \u201ccollegial.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Professor Fitzpatrick explained that the justices place great importance on maintaining this collegial atmosphere despite their differences.\u00a0 As an example of this dedication to separating the personal from the professional, he pointed out that Justice Scalia\u2019s closest friend on the Court is none other than his ideological opposite, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Duquesne Law School Adjunct Professor and retired Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Maureen Lally-Green\u2019s appellate court experiences echo Professor Fitzpatrick\u2019s observations.\u00a0 Interestingly, Judge Lally-Green also used the word \u201ccollegial\u2019 to describe the dynamic of the Superior Court. The goal of a court, she emphasized, is \u201cto get to the truth<\/i>.\u201d\u00a0 In doing so, she and her colleagues did not always agree, but those disagreements \u201cdidn\u2019t come from a place of anger, or a place that wasn\u2019t positive.\u201d Personal feuds, Judge Lally-Green said, were not part of her experience as an appellate judge. \u201cWe may disagree,\u201d she said, \u201cbut we need not be disagreeable.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Lauren Gailey is a second-year day student at Duquesne Law and is currently a Legal Intern for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Over the summer, Gailey worked for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, where she filed several briefs for the Child Exploitation Section of the Criminal Division and developed expertise\u00a0on the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. One of her briefs was submitted to the Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section Brief Bank for use by DOJ attorneys nationwide.
\n<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Lauren Gailey, Staff Writer WASHINGTON, DC – As the United States Supreme Court settles into its 2012-2013 term, the Court faces not just questions of law, but questions about its own internal dynamics as well. Last June, the Court announced its controversial decision to uphold the Obama administration\u2019s Patient [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":288,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-juris-blog","category-posts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/287","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=287"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/287\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":289,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/287\/revisions\/289"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/288"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}