106 w/ Ken 'Popehat' White and Damon Root "Justice Kennedy Quits, Various Other Things SCOTUS”
Jun 29, 2018
auto_awesome
Ken White, a legendary civil liberties attorney and Twitter personality from Popehat, joins Damon Root, Reason's SCOTUS journalist and author of "Overruled." They unpack Justice Anthony Kennedy's surprising retirement and its impact on the court's ideological balance. The duo also dives into recent Supreme Court rulings, including the travel ban and privacy rights concerning cell phone data. The conversation takes a quirky turn with a discussion on civility in politics, public accommodations, and the challenges of civil discourse in today's divided climate.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement raises critical concerns about the future ideological balance of the Supreme Court, particularly regarding landmark decisions like Roe v. Wade.
The SPLC's settlement with Maajid Nawaz sparks debates about the implications for free speech and the use of defamation lawsuits to silence opposing views.
Supreme Court rulings on public sector unions and digital privacy signal significant shifts in labor rights and constitutional protections in the modern era.
Deep dives
Justice Kennedy's Impact on the Supreme Court
Justice Anthony Kennedy is recognized as a pivotal figure on the Supreme Court, often serving as the swing vote on several significant issues such as abortion, campaign finance, and LGBTQ rights. His departure has raised concerns about the future balance of the Court, particularly regarding landmark decisions like Roe v. Wade, as he consistently voted to uphold its central tenets. This has led analysts to speculate on how his potential replacement might shift the judicial landscape, especially in light of the conservative movement that aims to overturn decisions that expanded individual rights. The discussions surrounding his influence illustrate the critical role justices play in shaping law and society, making his exit a point of intense scrutiny and concern.
SPLC Settlement and Free Speech Concerns
The recent settlement between the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Majid Nawaz has sparked a significant debate about the implications for free speech and defamation law. While the settlement marks a noteworthy acknowledgment of wrongful actions by the SPLC, it has also raised alarms about the precedent it sets for the use of defamation lawsuits as tools to silence opposing viewpoints. Critics argue that relying on defamation claims to combat what one perceives as offensive rhetoric may ultimately undermine the protection of free speech, allowing emotional reactions to dictate legal outcomes. This situation highlights the delicate balance between holding organizations accountable and safeguarding robust dialogue in public discourse.
California's Crisis Pregnancy Clinics and Free Speech
The Supreme Court's ruling on California's regulation of crisis pregnancy centers underscores the tensions between compelled speech and the First Amendment. The Court determined that the state cannot mandate these centers to disclose information about abortion services, framing the issue as one of free expression. This ruling reflects a longer trend in which the Court has rejected expanding exceptions to First Amendment protections, insisting that any regulation of speech must be carefully scrutinized. Critics of the decision are concerned that it may have far-reaching implications for various laws requiring disclosure across multiple fields, thus challenging many established regulatory frameworks.
Trump v. Hawaii and the Establishment Clause
The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Hawaii, concerning the travel ban, has rekindled debates surrounding the Establishment Clause and its interpretation. In this case, the Court applied a lenient standard of review known as the rational basis test, which allows laws to pass constitutional muster if they serve a legitimate governmental interest, even if their motivations are suspect. This approach has led to concerns that it sets a dangerous precedent for racial and religious discrimination because it appears to permit government actions that may not explicitly reference religion but still disproportionately affect certain groups. The ruling raises questions about the balance between national security and civil liberties in contemporary America.
Janus v. AFSCME and Its Implications for Unions
The decision in Janus v. AFSCME marks a significant shift in the legal landscape for public sector unions, rendering it unconstitutional to compel non-union members to pay fees for union-related activities. This ruling undermines the financial stability of public sector unions and serves as a critical blow to their bargaining power moving forward. Critics argue that the decision strikes at the heart of union solidarity and diminishes workers' rights to collective bargaining. This case not only highlights the growing influence of the conservative bloc on the Court but also reinforces the ideological divides surrounding labor rights and governmental authority.
Carpenter v. United States and Digital Privacy Rights
The Carpenter v. United States case addresses crucial issues of digital privacy, specifically concerning the warrantless collection of cell phone location data. The Supreme Court ruled that police must obtain a warrant to access extensive historical location information, acknowledging the significant privacy interests involved. This decision begins to chip away at the problematic third-party doctrine, which traditionally argues that individuals have no privacy rights concerning data shared with third parties. The outcome signals a potential shift in judicial attitudes towards digital privacy and the extent of government surveillance, highlighting ongoing tensions regarding personal rights in the age of technology.
Foster and Fisher are joined by legendary civil liberties attorney Ken White (of Popehat blogger and Twitter fame) and Damon Root (Reason's resident SCOTUS journalo and the author of "Overruled") to chop up the Justice Anthony Kennedy's surprise retirement announcement, his legacy, and the confirmation shitstorm that's sure to come.
Also on tap:
- SPLC's capitulation to Maajid Nawaz's defamation suit- SCOTUS upholds the travel ban, busts public sector unions, and tells cops to get a warrant for long-term cellphone location records.
Bonus bull session on civility, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, civil rights, public accommodations, free association, and why no elected officials should be allowed to eat anywhere, ever.
