Category Archives: National Journal

Posted on

It’s Time to Improve Affirmative Action

by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

Now that the Supreme Court has blessed racial preferences, universities should be transparent about the costs and benefits to intended beneficiaries. By making clear that racial affirmative-action preferences in higher-education admissions are likely to have the Supreme Court’s blessing for many decades to come, the Court might—just might—have set the stage for a more candid and constructive public discussion about how to make preferences work more effectively for the intended beneficiaries. The June 23 decision should end the siege mentality among defenders of racial preferences—and that, in turn, should lead to much-needed transparency and honesty about the costs as well […]

Posted on

Holder’s Promising Interrogation Plan

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

In 1966, the Supreme Court instructed police, in Miranda v. Arizona, to tell arrested suspects that "you have the right to remain silent." But, in fact, you don’t.

Rather, police — or more to the point of current debate, federal agents interrogating suspected terrorists — can skip the famous Miranda warnings and even use some degree of coercion to extract a confession, all quite legally. Indeed, you can even be jailed for refusing to answer questions after being granted immunity from any prosecution.

The problem for law enforcement — especially in the terrorism context — is that any statements obtained from an arrested suspect without Miranda warnings, or by directly coercing an involuntary confession, ordinarily cannot be used against the person in a criminal case.

A less familiar but perhaps more important problem is that current federal law also bars the use of most statements made more than six hours after a suspect’s arrest without first taking him to a magistrate judge for a "presentment" hearing. In a terrorism incident, such an interruption could derail a promising effort to get information about co-conspirators and planned attacks.

The combined effect is to force officials to make an unnecessarily difficult choice: They can put terrorism suspects through the kind of prolonged, uninterrupted interrogation that is their best hope of preventing future attacks. Or they can maximize the chance of a successful prosecution. But they can’t count on doing both, unless they get lucky.

This dilemma creates unhealthy incentives either to shun aggressive interrogation — which the Obama administration has sometimes seemed all too ready to do — or to subject suspects to the indefinite military detention, interrogation, and trial that the Bush administration favored.

Posted on

Recruiters: Kagan’s Forgivable Sin

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

The main Republican line of attack on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will be to paint her as antimilitary, at worst, or at best a fellow traveler of left-wing academic America-haters, based on what many have inaccurately called her "ban" on military recruiters as dean of Harvard Law School.

Kagan did discriminate against military recruiters for some months to protest the exclusion of openly gay people from the military. Is this a big blot on her record?

A little blot at worst, I’d say, and one offset by Kagan’s energetic and consistent support of students who had served and who planned to serve in the military, which she praised as a "noble" and "deeply honorable" profession.

 

One of Kagan’s great virtues was her success in taking a sledgehammer to the Harvard faculty’s high quotient of left-wing mindlessness.

 

Kagan’s short-lived denial to military recruiters of the same help that the law school provided to private employers was, in my view, an unwise way to protest the unjust 1993 law — adopted by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton — that excluded openly gay people from the military.

"At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses," charges Ed Whelan, head of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, in National Review Online’s Bench Memos blog, "Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists."

Posted on

Recruiters: Kagan’s Forgivable Sin – The Ninth Justice

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

The main Republican line of attack on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will be to paint her as antimilitary, at worst, or at best a fellow traveler of left-wing academic America-haters, based on what many have inaccurately called her "ban" on military recruiters as dean of Harvard Law School.

Kagan did discriminate against military recruiters for some months to protest the exclusion of openly gay people from the military. Is this a big blot on her record?

A little blot at worst, I’d say, and one offset by Kagan’s energetic and consistent support of students who had served and who planned to serve in the military, which she praised as a "noble" and "deeply honorable" profession.

Kagan’s short-lived denial to military recruiters of the same help that the law school provided to private employers was, in my view, an unwise way to protest the unjust 1993 law — adopted by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton — that excluded openly gay people from the military.

"At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses," charges Ed Whelan, head of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, in National Review Online’s Bench Memos blog, "Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists."

Ouch. But Kagan’s restrictions on military recruiting were both inherited and largely symbolic. They do not appear to have impeded recruiters’ access to interested students. She held annual Veterans Day dinners at her home for students who had served. And three Iraq War veterans who were students on her watch praised "Dean Kagan’s strong record of welcoming and honoring veterans on campus" in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Posted on

Courts Could Void Arizona’s New Law

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

President Obama had it about right, in my view, when he called Arizona’s new immigration law "misguided" and a threat to "basic notions of fairness" and to "trust between police and our communities."

Similar misgivings — filtered through a legal doctrine called "field pre-emption" — seem more likely than not to persuade the courts to strike the law down.

But please, let’s can the hysteria. The problems with this law — and with copycat proposals in at least 10 other states — are a far cry from the images of Nazi Germany, apartheid, and the Jim Crow South conjured up by leftists who would denounce any effort to discourage illegal immigration.

To correct some misconceptions:

• The solid majority support for the law among Arizonans — and the 51 percent support among other Americans who told Gallup pollsters that they had heard of the Arizona law — is not driven by racism. It’s driven by frustration with the federal government’s failure to protect Arizona and other border states from seeing their neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, and prisons flooded by illegal immigrants. Worse, "It’s terrifying to live next door to homes filled with human traffickers, drug smugglers, AK-47s, pit bulls, and desperate laborers stuffed 30 to a room, shoes removed to hinder escape," as Eve Conant reported in Newsweek.

• Although it’s true, and most unfortunate, that absent robust administrative safeguards the Arizona law could lead to racial profiling by police, it certainly does not require racial profiling. Indeed, a package of revisions signed on April 30 by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer seeks to prohibit racial profiling. The revisions did this by deleting the word "solely" from the original, April 23, law’s provision barring investigation of "complaints that are based solely on race, color, or national origin."

Posted on

Garland Born To Be A Judge

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

I recently asserted that any of the four people on the list initially leaked by the White House would be an excellent nominee to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. (See "An Excellent Supreme Court Shortlist," 4/10/10, p. 15.) Now I’d like to argue that the wisest choice would be Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

I hasten to add that the consensus that Garland would be the least controversial, most easily confirmed nominee is the least of my reasons for praising him.

Nor is my personal relationship with Garland a substantial factor, although full disclosure is in order: We became friendly in law school, working together on the law review in the mid-1970s. We had dinner at each other’s homes years ago and, more recently, have met for lunch once or twice a year. He invited my wife and me, among many others, to his chambers to watch President Obama’s inauguration. Garland has been guarded about his views, and I know nothing about them beyond the public record. But I can testify — as can many others — that he is about as fair-minded, judicious, and straight as a straight-arrow can be.

To be sure, ranking Garland and the three other shortlisters — all people of outstanding integrity and intellect — is a close call.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the early betting favorite, would bring youth (she is 49; Garland is 57), charm, and substantial conservative as well as liberal support. The former Harvard Law School dean is unencumbered by much of a paper trail — her views on almost all of the big issues are unknown — or by as much real-world experience as the others.

Posted on

Three Supreme Court Myths – The Ninth Justice

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

At both ends of the ideological spectrum, politicians, activists, journalists, and academics like to stress how big a change the next Supreme Court justice could make in the course of the law. The appointment will, says the conventional wisdom, be among President Obama’s most important legacies.

Many also stress how far to the right (say liberals) or left (say conservatives) of center the Supreme Court has been in recent years, the better to dramatize the need to correct the perceived imbalance.

And the dominant media image has been of "the conservative Court" (recent articles in The Washington Post), or "the Supreme Court’s conservative majority" (New York Times editorials), or a Court "as conservative as it’s been in nearly a century" (Newsweek commentary by my friend Dahlia Lithwick).

All this brings to mind three contrarian theses.

First, it simply won’t make much difference in the next five or so years — if ever — whom Obama picks from the lists of moderately liberal, extremely liberal, and just plain liberal candidates leaked by the White House.

Indeed, I can’t think of a single case or issue that would foreseeably be decided differently depending on whether the nominee turns out to be the most or the least liberal of those under serious consideration.

The Court is by nature quite stable. Imagine, for example, that Obama nominated and the Senate confirmed a person more liberal than either John Paul Stevens or any other current justice. No matter how passionate, or how brilliant, or how persuasive, he or she could move the law no further than at least four others were willing to go. And given the justices’ fierce independence, it’s hard to imagine any of them lurching leftward at the urging of the new kid on the block.

Posted on

How Republican Justices Evolve Leftward – The Ninth Justice

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

Justice John Paul Stevens, who in most portrayals has migrated from the center of the court when appointed by President Ford in 1975 to its left flank, has told several reporters that his ideology has not really changed much.

Rather, according to Stevens, he has remained about where he always was while newer and younger appointees have pushed the court to the right.

The record suggests otherwise. Like many of us, this extraordinarily intelligent, self-effacing gentleman, who will turn 90 on April 20, may be kidding himself a bit about his own consistency.

Like some other Republican-appointed justices in recent decades — Harry Blackmun and Sandra Day O’Connor and, to a lesser extent, David Souter, Warren Burger and Lewis Powell — Stevens has become markedly more liberal during his years on the court.

Meanwhile, no Democratic-appointed justice has become substantially more conservative over time. This helps explain why, despite the fact that Republican presidents have appointed 12 of the last 15 justices, the court itself has never — or, at least not yet — made the dramatic right turn that many reporters and commentators have repeatedly proclaimed. Indeed, the court’s rulings have remained left of the center of general public opinion on most (though not all) of the biggest issues.

What explains the asymmetry in justices’ evolution? More on that below. First, some facts about Stevens and other leftward-moving justices.

Posted on

An Excellent Supreme Court Shortlist – The Ninth Justice

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

With the long-expected announcement by Justice John Paul Stevens that he will retire by July, the coming summer could be dominated by a big confirmation battle — or perhaps just enlivened by a little skirmish, if President Obama picks a relatively uncontroversial nominee.

Many Republicans are spoiling for a fight to rev up their base for the coming elections. Some would depict any Obama nominee as an ultra-liberal eager to push the Court to the left, legislate from the bench, impose gay marriage by judicial decree, strip "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, invent welfare rights, require government-funded abortions, and free terrorists.

But, in fact, none — or at most one — of the four brainy and well-qualified public servants at the top of the shortlists that have made their way into the media from inside sources seems likely to move the Court left.

None of the four is clearly more liberal than Stevens, who is in turn a lot less liberal than, say, the late Justices William Brennan or Thurgood Marshall.

Stevens, who will still have one of the best minds on the Court when he turns 90 on April 20, has long insisted that he remains the old-fashioned judicial conservative and moderate Republican he was when President Ford appointed him in 1975. But the leftward drift of his opinions over the years has made him the senior member of the four-justice liberal bloc.

The four shortlisters are Solicitor General Elena Kagan; federal Appeals Court Judges Diane Wood of Chicago and Merrick Garland of the District of Columbia; and (though some count her out) Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. President Obama interviewed Kagan, Wood, and Napolitano last spring before choosing Sonia Sotomayor, an Appeals Court judge, to succeed Justice David Souter.

Posted on

A Liberal Nominee — And A Proposal

by Stuart Taylor, Jr.

National Journal

The president’s nominee had "a brilliant legal mind" and a charming manner, the critic wrote in an op-ed. But his record was "resolutely conservative." This made the Supreme Court nomination "a seismic event that threatens to deepen the nation’s red-blue divide." It should be rejected, the critic implied.

The nominee was John Roberts, now the chief justice. The critic was the comparably brilliant and charming Goodwin Liu, a University of California (Berkeley) law professor. He is now the most resolutely liberal of President Obama’s judicial nominees.

Indeed, the 39-year-old Liu’s sweeping vision of court-ordered social justice, though within the mainstream of legal academic opinion, puts him markedly to the ideological left of all 41 Senate Republicans, at least half of the Democrats, and 80 percent or more of voters, I’d guess.

Putting aside his ideology and his less than two years of legal experience outside the academy, Liu is an admirable candidate for the federal Appeals Court seat in California that he will fill if confirmed. The Rhodes scholar and former law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has an inspiring son-of-Taiwanese-immigrants life story. Plus, people like him.

So how should Senate Republicans and moderate Democrats respond to Liu’s nomination, now set for a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 16? Defer to the president? Vote no? Stall? Filibuster?

More on that below. First, a look at Liu’s writings and speeches, which conservative legal analyst Ed Whelan has collected, linked, and exhaustively analyzed in multiple posts on National Review Online’s Bench Memos blog.