[ad_1]
On Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts said, for the second time in less than two weeks, that he would not let over-enthusiastic Conservative judges deliberately ignore Supreme Court precedents – even though Roberts is not agree with these precedents.
The first such signal arrived 12 days ago, when Roberts suddenly voted with his Liberal colleagues to temporarily end an anti-abortion law in Louisiana almost identical to a Texas law that his court had overturned in 2016. Roberts is a Conservative nominated by George W. Bush. who generally votes against the right to abortion. He joined the dissent in the Texas case in 2016.
Roberts' second signal on the right flank of justice has arrived Moore v. Texas, the second case of this name to reach the Supreme Court. Both Moore the cases concern Bobby James Moore, a Texas man sentenced to die despite the fact that he is almost certainly intellectually deficient. According to the decision of the Supreme Court Atkins c. Virginia, which uses a term for the mentally handicapped that is now considered deeply offensive, "death is not a proper punishment for a mentally retarded criminal".
Nevertheless, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeal led a guerrilla campaign against Atkins, repeatedly stating that Mr. Moore is not intellectually handicapped and therefore can be executed.
First Moore In that case, the Supreme Court overturned the Texas Criminal Court of Appeal because the state court had assessed Moore's alleged disability using a separate test of clinical standards used by professionals in the field. Mental Health. "The arbitrations of intellectual disability should be" informed by the opinion of medical experts ", wrote Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her court in the Moore Case.
Roberts disagreed with Ginsburg's opinion. Although Roberts agreed that the idiosyncratic standard used by the Texas Criminal Court of Appeal was "unacceptable", he disapproved of the entire project of the majority to import clinical standards into the law governing the death penalty. "Clinicians, not judges, should determine clinical standards; and the judges, not the clinicians, should determine the content of the eighth amendment, "Roberts wrote. "Today's opinion confuses these roles and I respectfully dissent."
After Moore's victory on his first trip to the Supreme Court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal apparently ruled that she was not bound by the Supreme Court's decision. Tuesday, a majority of the high court reminded those Texas judges who is in charge. "We found in [the Texas court’s latest] too many opinions in which, with small variations, he repeats the analysis that we previously considered insufficient, "said Tuesday the Supreme Court in an unsigned notice. "And those same parts are essential to its final conclusion."
The most interesting aspect of the second Moore This decision, however, constitutes a brief concordant opinion of Chief Justice Roberts. "When this case was before us two years ago, I wrote in
dissenting that the wording by the majority of how the courts should apply the requirements of Atkins c. Virginia was unclear, "begins Roberts. "That's always the case."
Nevertheless, Roberts passes the essentials of her opinion into a paragraph to remind the Texas court that she can not simply ignore the statements of her judicial superiors.
But, aside from Moore's enforcement difficulties in other cases, it's easy to see that the Texas Criminal Court has misapplied it here. In remand, the court repeated the same errors that this Court had previously condemned – if not quite to haec verba, certainly in substance. The court reiterated that it relied improperly on the factors set forth in Ex parte Brisenoand again emphasized Moore's coping forces rather than his deficits. This did not escape the analysis of this Court last time. This is still not the case.
It is interesting to note that three of Roberts' colleagues – Judges Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – rallied to a dissenting opinion, claiming that the Texas Court's second attempt to clear the way for the execution of Moore should be maintained. Roberts could have associated himself with this opinion and come up with a result similar to that he sought in the first Moore Case. Instead, he voted with the Liberal bloc of his court.
So, what should Roberts do here? As is also the case in Roberts' decision on abortion earlier this month, the leader probably did not give up a lifetime of conservative views simply because he is now the median judge of Supreme Court. Indeed, the very day Roberts terminated the law in Louisiana, the leader also voted in favor of the execution of a man from Alabama without the presence of his spiritual advisor, a decision widely criticized.
Liberals who pray for Roberts to be reborn as a moderate justice should expect to be very disappointed.
But Roberts cares about the political legitimacy of his court. He wants to maintain the appearance that judicial decisions are not entirely dictated by politics. And he cares that there is only one US Supreme Court – and it is not located in Texas.
Retired Justice Anthony Kennedy was the fifth crucial vote in the first Moore case, just as it was the fifth vote to maintain the right to an abortion alive. When Kennedy was replaced by Archbishop Brett Kavanaugh, almost every wise observer of the Supreme Court expected his decisions to turn sharply to the right.
This result is still extremely likely. But Roberts has now made it known twice that he expects the law of his court to be dealt with by ordinary judicial means – and not by the lower courts refusing to follow the previous existing Liberals. It also seems to point out that Conservative change will not happen all at once.
It is not a good thing for the Liberals, who can always expect the Supreme Court to continue to walk in the right. But it's better than the result desired by judges such as Thomas, Alito or Gorsuch.
[ad_2]
Source link