Bench Memos

Leahy’s Syllabus of Errors, Part 1

Last Sunday Senator Leahy bemoaned some recent decisions by the Supreme Court’s four conservative members plus Justice Kennedy, speculating that they have cost the institution “credibility with the American people.” Let’s take a closer look at some of the cases Leahy cited to see who exactly is losing credibility here:

1. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007).  Senator Leahy’s summary of the case is that the Justices “rewrote the law to say . . . that women could be paid less than men.” Stop the presses! Did the Supreme Court really repeal Title VII, the veritable cornerstone of the civil-rights movement? Not even close. The real question in Ledbetter was whether a person could sit on their employment discrimination claims for well over a decade and still sue. In answering no to this question, the Court simply applied Title VII’s 180-day statute of limitations deadline. If you want to change the law, Senator Leahy, you’re in luck — that’s your job! (See Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.)

 

2. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009). Here, Leahy again accuses the court of “rewr[iting] the law,” but this time, “to say that age discrimination laws won’t apply if corporate interests don’t want them to.” To state Leahy’s position is to refute it. The Court never mentioned “corporate interests,” but held that age discrimination laws won’t apply if the text of the law doesn’t say so. In this case, Congress used different language for race, sex, and national origin discrimination to make those suits easier to bring than age discrimination. 

 

The irony of a senator criticizing the Court for respecting statutory distinctions made by the Congress seems to be lost on Leahy. But the critique says more about Leahy than the Court. It reveals that his real beef was with the law as originally written and that he wanted the courts to amend the act for him. After all, having to draft statutes, hold hearings, and be held accountable for actual votes can be such a drag. It would be so much easier to just have a Supreme Court that was willing to do the work for him.

 

I’ll address the last two statutes Leahy misconstrued in a later post today.

 

 — Carrie Severino is chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network.

Carrie Severino is chief counsel and policy director to the Judicial Crisis Network.

Most Popular

Film & TV

Knives Out Takes On the Anti-Immigration Crowd

Since the beginning of the Obama era, the Left has broadcast two contradictory messages on the subjects of race and immigration. The first is that a so-called Coalition of the Ascendant will inevitably displace white Americans as the dominant force in the country’s politics and culture. The second is that ... Read More
Film & TV

Knives Out Takes On the Anti-Immigration Crowd

Since the beginning of the Obama era, the Left has broadcast two contradictory messages on the subjects of race and immigration. The first is that a so-called Coalition of the Ascendant will inevitably displace white Americans as the dominant force in the country’s politics and culture. The second is that ... Read More
From left: Harvard University's Noah Feldman, Stanford University's Pamela Karlan, University of North Carolina's Michael Gerhardt, and George Washington University's Jonathan Turley testify before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, December 4, 2019.

The Impeachment Eye Test

To put it mildly, the 1960s were not notorious for juridical modesty. They might compare favorably, though, to Wednesday’s episode of “The Lawyer Left Does Impeachment” at the House Judiciary Committee. Oh, I have no doubt that the three progressive constitutional scholars spotlighted by Democrats yearn in ... Read More
From left: Harvard University's Noah Feldman, Stanford University's Pamela Karlan, University of North Carolina's Michael Gerhardt, and George Washington University's Jonathan Turley testify before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, December 4, 2019.

The Impeachment Eye Test

To put it mildly, the 1960s were not notorious for juridical modesty. They might compare favorably, though, to Wednesday’s episode of “The Lawyer Left Does Impeachment” at the House Judiciary Committee. Oh, I have no doubt that the three progressive constitutional scholars spotlighted by Democrats yearn in ... Read More
Culture

The Absurd Crusade against the Salvation Army

We all know some individuals who are so obviously good and kind that we are certain if anyone were to dislike them, that's all we would need to know about the person. We would immediately assume he or she is a bad person. To hate the manifestly good is a sure sign of being bad. Such is the case regarding the ... Read More
Culture

The Absurd Crusade against the Salvation Army

We all know some individuals who are so obviously good and kind that we are certain if anyone were to dislike them, that's all we would need to know about the person. We would immediately assume he or she is a bad person. To hate the manifestly good is a sure sign of being bad. Such is the case regarding the ... Read More
White House

Nancy Pelosi’s Case

Further to the post below, a couple of thoughts on Nancy Pelosi’s statement yesterday. She said this near the beginning: During the constitutional convention, James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, warned that a president might betray his trust to foreign powers which might prove fatal to the ... Read More
White House

Nancy Pelosi’s Case

Further to the post below, a couple of thoughts on Nancy Pelosi’s statement yesterday. She said this near the beginning: During the constitutional convention, James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, warned that a president might betray his trust to foreign powers which might prove fatal to the ... Read More