SCOTUS

Favorite SCOTUS case?

I would probably have to point to one of the criminal procedure cases. It’’s probably Miranda, to be honest, or one of those where they first recognized that everyone has a right to council, and  everyone has right to procedure. And I think it has gotten a lot of bad press, those those sort of Warren Court cases because [they say], “Well, you’re letting off criminals, and you know,  there’s technicalities.” I really believe in the system and in the system of everyone deserving a robust–if not that, at least adequate–defense. I think cases like Miranda, the ones that were in that time frame, are really defending the system. Like this is the way that a just society works, and it will only work if we provide the same protections and rights to everyone regardless of who they are.

Least favorite?

Probably Bush v. Gore, if I had to say. I just don’t think that was appropriate from the jump for them to intervene in that way, and I just don’t think it supports the fundamental beliefs that I have about our system and our system of elections.

Favorite SCOTUS justice? 

I have to say Sandra Day O’Connor. I would love to say Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so I could both put them in there as women Justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is kind of a hero of mine. Her whole life, to me, is kind of something I have so much admiration for and wonder at. I think Sandra Day O’Connor, just because for her time, and being the first Supreme Court Justice to be a female is… I remember what it was like, and it was the 90’s, and I can’t imagine for her, what it was like making her way to that position a generation, two generations, before I did it. I have so much respect for that.

Least favorite?

It is not political. I mean, you know, Scalia causes me lots of sleepless nights, but I respect him. The thing about Scalia that gets me is that intellectually, I have so much respect for him, but this idea of this strict construction of the Constitution and plain reading… I don’t think it’s really defensible. And so for such a talented and gifted jurist, it’s hard for me to sometimes to square that with this idea that the Constitution and the plain reading are going to give you the answers to complicated modern questions. I just feel like that’s kind of sell out politically. I don’t think he was being disingenuous; I just have a hard time figuring out how he justified some of that. But again, he and Ginsburg were good buddies so that should tell me that she saw something there.