Monday, March 23, 2015

On Judicial Candor, Judge Posner, and the Supreme Court


by Eric Segall

I was recently asked to guest teach a class at Michigan State Law School on the topic of the appropriate judicial role and whether the Supreme Court is or is not a real court (I argue in my book the Court is not a real court). I was quite flattered and happy to do it but also thought the students might like to hear about this topic from a real judge so I asked my friend and sometimes writing partner Judge Posner if he would meet with the class as well. He graciously agreed and through the marvels of modern technology (well almost, as there were a few glitches on my end) we had a Skype with people in three different states.

There was a general consensus in the room among Judge Posner, myself, and several faculty members (Mae Kuykendall, Jim Chen and David Blankfein-Tabachnick) that the legal realist account of how judges decide cases was mostly accurate. We all agreed that legal doctrine rarely drives results in hard cases and that judges are, and should be, aware of the practical consequences of their decisions. We also agreed that stare decisis, while having some effect on how lower court judges make their decisions, plays virtually no role in generating decisions in the Supreme Court.

Agreement broke down, however, when we discussed what level of candor we should expect from judges in general and the Supreme Court in particular. I argued that it is inappropriate for the Supreme Court to hide behind standard and misleading methods of constitutional interpretation such as precedent, text, and historical analysis when we all know (per our acceptance of the realist critique) that decisions are generated more by what Judge Posner calls “priors” and what I call values writ large, than by legal doctrine. This problem is more pronounced at the Supreme Court than other courts because the Justices choose the hardest cases, there is the most at stake, and there is no effective review of their decisions.

Judge Posner argued strenuously that I was holding judges in general and the Supreme Court in particular to a standard of candor that we do not place on members of Congress, the President, and other public officials. Judge Posner stated that we know politicians are not candid about the reasons motivating their political choices and we should not be surprised that judges do the same. Judge Posner did distinguish between affirmatively lying, which judges should not do, and not disclosing the true bases of decisions, which he felt was inevitable.

I argued that federal judges are governmental officials appointed for life who exercise coercive power over us and the rule of law requires they tell the litigants and the public the true reasons for their decisions (as best they can). For example, I have argued that Justices Scalia and Thomas quite clearly do not follow an originalist methodology across huge portions of constitutional law and they should stop pretending that they do. Judge Posner suggested that it is quite possible they think originalism drives their decisions and their failure to own up to the priors that actually generate their decisions is based more on a lack of self-reflection than bad faith. I quibbled that since just about everyone outside the Court agrees doctrine does not really drive decisions, that lack of self-reflection on the part of the Justices was a bit alarming. Professor Chen, who earlier in the discussion made a similar point, was sympathetic to this suggestion.

During the course of the discussion, Judge Posner identified Justices Holmes, Cardozo and Jackson as three of his favorite Justices and Learned Hand as one of his favorite judges. He also lamented that most current Justices do not have any significant political experience and we would all be better off if there were a few ex-governors or ex-senators on the bench. I think we all agreed with that complaint.

Towards the end of the class, I asked what people thought would happen if one of the Justices gave a public talk admitting that the Court decides cases as Judge Posner described he decides cases. Get a sense of the fair and just result, conduct relevant research, make sure the consequences are not terrible, and then take a peak to make sure prior legal doctrine does not forbid the decision (in the Court’s case, as opposed to lower court judges, the last step can basically be skipped). In other words, what would happen if the Justices admitted that they functionally make all-things-considered decisions. Professor Kuykendall responded that she thought the American people would welcome such candor (especially given the low esteem surrounding the legal profession) and most people would be pleased the Court was finally admitting what the rest of the world already suspects.

I hope, but I am not optimistic, that one day we will find out if her prediction is correct.

14 comments:

Shag from Brookline said...

I'm reminded of TV-Seinfeld's George Costanza's "It's not a lie if you believe it."

Regarding " ... we would all be better off if there were a few ex-governors or ex-senators on the bench. I think we all agreed with that complaint."

like an Earl Warren, whose Court gave rise to originalism as a reaction to it?

Unknown said...

In Your book, You argue Life tenure for Supreme Court Justices is a "terrible mistake". Would not expanding the court help mitigate any perceived errors? For example, if the court were to expand by one seat during the 3rd year of Each President's term(s), would this not help reduce deleterious effects? Adopting a statute to do so would be far easier than adopting a constitutional amendment to change the length of tenure.

t jones said...

"In other words, what would happen if the Justices admitted that they functionally make all-things-considered decisions"?
A few possibilities come to mind:
1. The constitutional system would be perceived by the general public as less fair, since the final step would stop being perceived as a "legal review" and instead seen/recognized as a political review, by unelected, life tenured politicians.
2. The actual litigants might see the process as fairer since, at least, they would be able to brief the issues the justices care about, instead of being compelled to submit legal briefs when the justices are actually concerned about policy and outcomes. E.g., the ACA "death spiral" is not perceived as a legitimate "legal" issue even though it may be the strongest argument for the Government's position.
3. The public might finally realize how important selection of justices is when choosing a president.

Unknown said...

"The public might finally realize how important selection of justices is when choosing a president." -- And a Senator.

Joe said...

All courts are not just influenced by "legal doctrine," since robots don't adjudicate.

Your argument is that Supreme Court more than others involves personal factors affecting the decision-making. Fine. "Legal doctrine" still "drives results in hard cases." This includes the type of judicial philosophy the justices have.

Liberal justices like Breyer do less "hiding behind" at times and note how in hard cases there is judgment where reasonable minds disagree. Kennedy also flags this, including in 8A cases where he notes aboveboard that the judgment of judges, not "history" or whatever is the ultimate factor. "Originalism" is a phony sort of humility as Brennan once noted.

Judges apply various legal principles in judging but ultimately also act as human beings affected by their sense of fairness. It's fine to be aboveboard with that but like an umpire isn't totally neutral judging the strike zone, it isn't just "not really a court."

That's hyperbole or perhaps a naive statement of how other courts actually operate. As to a more diverse bench as to politicians etc. (Kagan being appointed just for this purpose), that's good. As to life tenure, a twenty year term, especially given increasing life expectancies etc., seems a fair approach.

Joe said...

I also think many people realize the importance of who appoints and confirms judges. At least, it is a major concern among the base of both parties. It also was a major issue back to the days of Jefferson vs. the Federalist run judiciary.

The importance of people realizing the President is not just a personality but someone who runs the executive department is generally important. The "I would like to drink a beer with him" rule in 2000 was inane.

Eric Segall said...

Unknown said: Would not expanding the court help mitigate any perceived errors?

I am open to the idea!

Shag from Brookline said...

To elaborate on Joe's:

"It also was a major issue back to the days of Jefferson vs. the Federalist run judiciary."

consider that CJ Marshall served on the Court 36 years, followed by CJ Taney for almost as long. It is said that Marshall dissuaded separate opinions by the Justices, whether concurring or dissenting. And there were identifiable political decisions during such close to 7 decades by the Court, quite a long stretch of the Court's history during the nation's formative years dealing with a Constitution that was not always crystal clear leading to the Civil War.

As for umpires in judging the strike zone, my understanding is that if applied consistently to both sides, then at least there is a sense of equality and thus fairness than would not be the case if favoring one team over another. But judges/justices, unlike an umpire calling balls and strikes, do not opine in real time, thus permitting more time for "priors" and the like to develop. Briefs of the parties, and even more so amici bries, provide reminders of "priors" and the like just in case.

Guo Guo said...

guowenhao20150326
coach outlet store online
michael kors outlet
jordan 4
prada shoes
louis vuitton handbags
timberland shoes
hollister pas cher
tod's sale
nhl jerseys wholesale
kate spade handbags
beats by dre
prada outlet
kate spade uk
prada handbags
ray ban
louis vuitton outlet
abercrombie
new balance shoes
burberry outlet
coach outlet
tods outlet
adidas wings
coach outlet online
toms shoes
foamposite gold
lacoste outlet
adidas shoes
christian louboutin
kate spade outlet
tiffany and co jewelry
michael kors canada
toms shoes outlet online
lululemon
giuseppe zanotti outlet
kobe 9 elite
michael kors handbags
converse outlet
michael kors outlet
foamposite shoes
michael kors outlet

Guo Guo said...

guowenhao20150430calvin klein outlet
swarovski crystal
links of london
michael kors outlet
burberry outlet online
lacoste outlet
ray ban sunglasses
nba jerseys
ray ban wayfarer
michael kors handbags
mac makeup
kobe bryants shoes
michael kors outlet
tods outlet
toms shoes
ray ban uk
ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
celine outlet
adidas wings
marc jacobs outlet
abercrombie and fitch
timberland boots
true religion outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach outlet store online
instyler
louboutin shoes
beats solo
nike roshe run
ray ban sunglasses
air force one shoes
ray ban sale
herve leger dresses
michael kors outlet
cheap oakley sunglasses
salvatore ferragamo
michael kors handbags
cheap toms
mcm bags

Shijun Lin said...

shijun 5.20
celine bags
gucci outlet online
polo ralph lauren
michael kors
gucci outlet online
oakley frogskins
running warehouse
louboutin
christian louboutin
air jordans
polo ralph lauren
christian louboutin
chanel no 5
true religion sale
michael kors outlet online sale
prada sunglasses
louis vuitton outlet
gucci outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
concord 11
cheap oakleys
mont blanc pen
jordan retro 11
gucci handbags
michael kors outlet
jordan 11s
ray ban glasses
abercrombie store new york
toms canada
polo outlet
kate spade outlet
jordan 11 columbia
jordan 11s
cheap jerseys
coach outlet
coach outlet store online

chenlina said...

chenlina20150604
michael kors outlet
lululemon
michael kors outlet
jordan 13 shoes
air max uk
michael kors
hollister clothing
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
ray ban wayfarer
hollister clothing
gucci bags
coach outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
ray ban outlet
coach outlet
michael kors
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet online
lv outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
nike air max
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglass
prada uk
gucci shoes
louis vuitton
mont blanc
www.louisvuitton.com
abercrombie store
ralph lauren sale
jordan 11 snakeskin
oakley outlet
louis vuitton
ray ban glasses
michael kors outlet
chanel uk
coach factory outlet

chenlina said...

chenlina20150604
michael kors outlet
lululemon
michael kors outlet
jordan 13 shoes
air max uk
michael kors
hollister clothing
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
ray ban wayfarer
hollister clothing
gucci bags
coach outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
ray ban outlet
coach outlet
michael kors
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet online
lv outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
nike air max
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglass
prada uk
gucci shoes
louis vuitton
mont blanc
www.louisvuitton.com
abercrombie store
ralph lauren sale
jordan 11 snakeskin
oakley outlet
louis vuitton
ray ban glasses
michael kors outlet
chanel uk
coach factory outlet

Guo Guo said...

guowenhao20150605
mcm bags
new york jets jerseys
tory burch outlet online
timberland shoes
roshe run men
lacoste shirts
oakley sunglasses
boston celtics jersey
chanel handbags
swarovski crystal
hermes birkin
iphone 6 plus cases
louis vuitton outlet
prada outlet
michael kors handbags
burberry outlet online
abercrombie and fitch
tods shoes
abercrombie
converse all star
lacoste outlet
denver broncos jerseys
air jordan shoes
adidas outlet
adidas shoes
nike running shoes
marc jacobs outlet
seattle seahawks jerseys
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
kate spade handbags
ray ban sunglasses
hermes belt
insanity
converse shoes
mcm handbags
lebron james shoes
gucci outlet
calvin klein underwear
louis vuitton outlet