The Corner

Politics & Policy

Chuck Schumer Is Not Opposed to Overturning Precedent

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer looks on after the Democratic weekly policy lunch on Capitol Hill, June 19, 2018. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

One of the preemptive criticisms I’m seeing leveled against Amy Coney Barrett is that she is “opposed to” the maintenance of precedent. Yesterday, Chuck Schumer suggested that Barrett “disagrees with ‘stare decisis’ — the idea that cases like Roe v. Wade are settled law in the courts — and instead has said she wants ‘space’ for ‘reargument.'” In the Los Angeles Times today David Savage joins this line of attack, complaining that “Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a potential Supreme Court nominee, has defended overturning precedents.” If Barrett is the nominee, expect to see this idea promulgated widely.

This charge is a peculiar one. Everybody is fine with the overturning of precedent — the question, as ever, is which precedents qualify, and on what rationale — and among “everybody” is Chuck Schumer, a man who supports all of the precedent-overturning that was done during the New Deal and by the Warren Court; who was thrilled when the Court overturned Baker v. Nelson; and who presumably does not feel that Brown v. Board of Education was an outrageous usurpation of the standard set in Plessy, or that Korematsu should be preserved in aspic. During his speech to the Democratic Convention in 2016, Bernie Sanders went so far as to promise that, if elected, “Hillary Clinton will nominate justices to the Supreme Court who are prepared to overturn Citizens United.” Far from being horrified, the audience clapped and cheered. The only thing that has changed since then is that the president is now a Republican.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Rod Rosenstein’s Resistance

Rod Rosenstein is even a weasel when repudiating his weasel moves. Here (with my italics) is the deputy attorney general’s non-denial denial of a New York Times report Friday that he brainstormed about ousting President Trump in May 2017: The New York Times’s story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. . . ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Fight for Kavanaugh 

The cynics — or, perhaps more precisely, the realists — believed that the Democrats were playing for time in the hopes of finding another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. The cynics were right. The New Yorker stooped to publish a shoddy story alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a woman while he ... Read More
White House

Trump Stands By ‘Fantastic’ Kavanaugh

President Trump was supportive of his nominee to the Supreme Court during a radio interview set to be broadcast on Monday morning, in which he characterized Brett Kavanaugh as a “fantastic, fantastic man” and called into question allegations of sexual assault. In the interview — recorded on Sunday, ... Read More