Chief Justice Roberts visited BYU today. His Forum talk will be posted here fairly soon, though I suspect most law students, law professors, and laywers would find that talk rather boring. The President of BYU has labeled this "The Year of the Constitution," so Chief Justice Roberts offered a survey of the Constitution. Which is fine, though I had hoped for more personal insights.
Things improved markedly this afternoon as the Chief Justice spent an hour at the Law School in a Q&A with law students. My sense is that most people went away very impressed. He is comfortable in front of a crowd, and he didn't punt on any questions. The snippet that forms the title to this post was an aside, and I suspect that most people didn't notice the remark. At the time, he was talking about how he decides cases -- including this comforting insight: "If the case involves a statute, I start by reading the statute" -- and I happened to be wondering about the influence of legal scholarship on his views. Just then he said, "I don't keep up with constitutional scholarship."
In response to a student's complaint about the length of the Supreme Court's opinions, the Chief Justice expressed some sympathy, but said that there wasn't much to be done about it. Except, as an afterthought, the possibility of taking more cases. The Court has been second-guessed about reducing its caseload (quite dramatically) over the past decades, and I suspect that he is right about opinions expanding to fill the space alloted.
I was also intrigued by his explanation for how he assigns cases. He said that if one justice could write an opinion that would yield only one dissent while another would write the opinion in a manner that would yield multiple dissents, he would assign the opinion to the "unifying" justice. And if two justices have been at odds in one case, he might assign an opinion to a justice would would bring them together on another case. Nothing shocking in any of this, I suppose, but I hadn't put much thought into these aspects of the matter.
His biggest surprise in being Chief Justice? The diplomatic role of the Court. He noted that judicial officers from other countries often stop at the Court, and the Chief Justice serves as the head diplomatic officer.
Finally, he mentioned the link between judicial pay and judicial independence. Again, nothing new, but this seems to be a problem that will not go away. He worries about the temptation faced by judges -- even judges with life tenure -- to craft their opinions for future gain. His predecessor (William Rehnquist) was active on this issue, too, calling "the need to increase judicial salaries to be the most pressing issue facing the federal judiciary today." Our new Chief Justice seems to agree.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200e54efd73808833
Links to weblogs that reference "I don't keep up with constitutional scholarship":
1. Posted by Cliff on October 23, 2007 @ 23:37 | Permalink
Gordon,
At least in my case, you are right on. I was definitely impressed with the Chief Justice, and frankly moreso than I am with any of the current Presidential Candidates.
(Of course, who can say whether that has as much to do with personality or with the simple fact that the Chief Justice is not running for any sort of office.)
In any case, his candor, quick wit, and skillful give and take with the audience was refreshing (although not surpsising. A law prof I know who saw him present oral argument as an attorney in DC described him as "butter") I came away wishing we had another hour.
BTW - I did catch the remark, "I don't keep up with constitutional scholarship," and I loved it, especially given the context of the question he was asked.
2. Posted by Anthony on October 24, 2007 @ 18:34 | Permalink
How does a school merit a visit from the CJ of SCotUS? Pay him (underscoring the importance of judicial compensation)? Despite the fact that I'm a crazy liberal, I think hearing such a prominent figure talk (about anything, really) in person would be great.
3. Posted by Scott Moss on October 25, 2007 @ 15:18 | Permalink
Cliff or Gordon: what was "the context of the question he was asked"? Cliff, you imply it made his comment particularly interesting, so I'm just curious.
4. Posted by Jake on October 25, 2007 @ 21:44 | Permalink
The CJ's observation about the diplomatic role of the Court strikes home for me. I once saw a federal judge who was very involved in helping lawyers, legal scholars, and jurists from emergent democracies escort a number of such visitors around the courthouse. At one point in the tour, the judge showed the foreign visitors some 300+ boxes filled with dusty old contracts on which a large case turned. (This was before the days of electronic document presentation.) The foreign lawyers enthusiastically photographed the many shelves of contract files, with the stated idea of telling the folks back home how we resolve legal disputes in America.
Pros and cons of document-intensive litigation aside, it was a moment to feel proud for our legal system.
5. Posted by Cliff on October 25, 2007 @ 23:47 | Permalink
Scott,
I would say that you almost have to have heard the question. It was essentially a question about how a particular justice's jurisprudential tendencies informs that justice's decisions and written opinions, but it was framed in such a way as to suggest that justices approach a problem by first consciously reaffirming that justice's judicial philosophy. eg: A justice approaches an issue by saying to himself, I am a positivist, or I am a strict constructionist, and therefore I will approach this issue in X manner.
The question involved a number of statements of one word definitions of judicial philosophy that appeared to be prearranged in alliterative form. While the premise of the question certainly had some merit, the delivery smacked of hubris. The question sounded so much like one that was meant to sound "academic," that for me at least, it colored the Chief Justice's statement that he doesn't "keep up on Constitutional scholarship."
6. Posted by Cliff on October 25, 2007 @ 23:56 | Permalink
I should add that beyond the "color" of the question, the statement reasonated with me for the same reason it appears to have reasonated with Gordon, as a straightforward affirmation of a straightforward judicial approach. "If the case involves a statute, I start by reading a statute."
The Chief Justice's complete answer, as the statements quoted by Gordon indicate, stood in almost complete juxtaposition to the question asked, and in that context, it also had greater meaning.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
