Re: Linda Greenhouse Remains Hopeful on Obamacare

A follow-up to this post: Linda Greenhouse devotes much of her latest reflection on the Obamacare case to using Monday’s visual strip-search ruling to illustrate her proposition that “there are obviously tensions and even rifts within the Supreme Court that don’t map readily onto the one-dimensional 5-4 narrative.” Fair enough. I think that she’s right to observe that the “external evidence” about that ruling suggests that there was “an internal struggle” of some sort, though I’m surprised that she didn’t note the substantial possibility that Justice Sotomayor, who ended up with no majority opinions from the October sitting, may have initially been assigned the majority opinion and have then somehow lost her majority.

Greenhouse also can’t resist taking what seems to me a cheap whack at Justice Thomas. Thomas, she notes, failed to join Part IV of Justice Kennedy’s lead opinion in the strip-search case and didn’t offer any reason for not doing so. That, Greenhouse contends, “was a wildly uncollegial act, violating the norm that votes come with reasons.”

Kennedy’s two-paragraph Part IV says only what the Court was not required to decide and was not deciding. It could have been cut without altering the meaning of the opinion. So although I don’t know why Thomas declined to join it, I don’t see how it’s “wildly uncollegial” for him not to have explained his decision. I also don’t see how he’s violated “the norm that votes come with reasons,” as his joinder in the remainder of Kennedy’s opinion amply explains his vote.

I’ll also note that two weeks before the strip-search ruling, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan joined all but a small part of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland and declined to offer any explanation for their failure to join that small part. In that part—footnote 1—Ginsburg reiterated her substantive positions that “Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to its Article I Commerce Clause power” and “can abrogate state immunity pursuant to §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment” under certain circumstances. Do Sotomayor and Kagan disagree with Ginsburg’s positions on these important questions? Or (as I would guess) have they simply not definitively formed their views on these questions? Who knows? If “the norm that votes come with reasons” were as robust as Greenhouse contends, she ought to condemn them for “a wildly uncollegial act.” (Surely it cannot matter whether the unjoined portion of the opinion is structured as a brief part or as a footnote.)

Most Popular


The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More