Based on the U.S. Supreme Court argument in the Wisconsin Gerrymandering case, I am optimistic that we may get some very much needed reform. To see why, click here for my commentary on TheHill.com.
It was difficult to sit through all the sanctimonious claims of doing law by adhering to precedent by a succession of Supreme Court nominees and then read its decision in BNSF R. CO. v. Tyrrell in which the Court overruled International Shoe v. State of Washington. Senators have been grilling the nominees for years about adherence to precedent. We heard about ordinary precedent, long standing precedent, and precedent that has been used and cited numerous times.
International Shoe was decided in 1945 by legendary justices. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote the opinion. He was joined by Justices Douglas and Frankfurter, as well as justices Reed, Murphy, Rutledge and Burton who are less well known to the general public. There were no dissents. Justice Hugo Black concurred on the ground that the attack on the jurisdiction of the State of Washington was so frivolous it should have been dismissed out of hand. Justice Jackson was a member of the Court but recused himself and took no part. Effectively it was unanimous.
If ever a case was used and relied on it was International Shoe. Lexis, a legal database reported that International Shoe had been cited by nearly 22,000 judicial decisions at all levels of the American legal system, plus some 13,000 other sources. It showed no negative treatment.
International Shoe provided that companies could be sued either where the claim arose or where they did sufficient business to make it fair to sue them there.
Montana’s Supreme Court held that the defendant corporation could be sued in Montana “because it has over 2,000 miles of railroad track and employs more than 2,000 workers in Montana.” It other words, the company is quite busy in Montana. But the U.S. Supreme Court held that the corporation could only be sued at its home office.
In their freshman year, law students are drilled on International Shoe. Endless pages in textbooks are devoted to International Shoe. A pretty important decision indeed. But the Roberts Court didn’t like it.
Justice Sotomayor, as she often does, explained:
The majority’s approach grants a jurisdictional windfall to large multistate or multinational corporations that operate across many jurisdictions. Under its reasoning, it is virtually inconceivable that such corporations will ever be subject to general jurisdiction in any location other than their principal places of business or of incorporation. Foreign businesses with principal places of business outside the United States may never be subject to general jurisdiction in this country even though they have continuous and systematic contacts within the United States. … What was once a holistic, nuanced contacts analysis backed by considerations of fairness and reasonableness has now effectively been replaced by the rote identification of a corporation’s principal place of business or place of incorporation. The result? It is individual plaintiffs, harmed by the actions of a farflung foreign corporation, who will bear the brunt of the majority’s approach and be forced to sue in distant jurisdictions with which they have no contacts or connection.
In other words, these companies are too big to lose. The more places a company does business, the further it can make plaintiffs travel. Even if plaintiffs can get to court over the hurdles placed by this Court, they will have to sue far away in unfamliar places. No barrier is strong enough to protect those companies which are already wealthy enough to give back to the society that protects them.
These cases have been decided under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendments. The word “due” means appropriate. It is an invitation to craft a jurisprudence that maximizes fairness to the parties. But the Court has been going the other way, grounding judicial power on happenstance, not fairness.
The Roberts Court is not doing law. Instead it has its own economic policy. It doesn’t seem to have noticed that voters in both parties have been demanding populism in economic policy. But who elected the Roberts Court?
— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, July 18, 2017.
Barack Obama has been one of our most decent and intelligent presidents. I’ll miss him. Instead of simplification and slogans, Obama explained the complexities of everything from medical treatment to foreign policy. Instead of shooting from the hip, he studied problems carefully and reached mature, intelligent decisions.
But what will stick?
Starting with foreign affairs, Obama got most of the boots off Muslim lands. When Obama took office in 2008 we had close to 200,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we have about 15,000 troops, combined, there and in Syria.
ISIS seems to have refocused on Europe but that’s still a problem for us. Europeans’ objectives are compatible with our own, so they are crucial allies, unlike the Russians. But Europe confronts many times more refugees than we do, with backlash and threats to democracy in several countries. American action in Syria added to the refugee flow, but much resulted from revolutions independent of us. More American militarization in the Arab world would inflame the refugee crisis and increase the terrorism directed at us.
Terrorists are fueled by militarization; nations are much more vulnerable to our military – that’s the difference between defeating Saddam Hussein, having him executed and trying to remain there. Trump may talk tough, but will he be fool enough to wade back into those trouble waters?
In Guantanamo, fewer than 60 prisoners remain of the nearly 800 who were imprisoned there.
Republicans dislike the Iran nuclear deal but so far they’ve nothing to show for their fears. Objections from the other signatories may prevent Trump from disavowing it. This may be the first real test of whether Trump has any grip on reality.
At home, Republicans have been yelling for years that they will tear Obamacare down the first chance they get. But their friends in the insurance industry will howl if they do, especially if Republicans leave features Americans like – a guarantee that you can get insurance, coverage for pre-existing conditions, tax credits for small businesses, etc. So it’s not clear what they’ll actually do. Obama took his health care plan from Mitt Romney’s Republican plan. I can think of improvements to the left of Obamacare, but not any that are more consistent with Republican free-market philosophy. Republicans are in a pickle.
Obama got a small stimulus soon after taking office. Terrified it might actually work, Republicans fought to keep it small. Obama’s stimulus worked, slowly, satisfying the cynicism of Congressional Republicans willing to hurt the country in order to make Obama look bad.
Dodd-Frank financial regulation still stands, reigning in a financial system that gambled with everyone else’s money and made a large number of us much worse off.
Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. One has become the conscience of the Court, the other quieter and more conciliatory. Together, they’ve made a the Court much more fair. The future depends on how long Ginsburg lives and how long Trump is in office. The difference Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan made could disappear in a heartbeat.
So, there’s a lot to celebrate in what Obama did or tried to accomplish. But I have real fears of what could be done in the effort to discredit him instead of making things better for the people of America.
— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, January 3, 2017.