Plan B Forum

Your Result: Elena Kagan

Justice Elena Kagan! You are the young gun of the Court — the most recent appointee, but a vocal jurist in oral argument. Your incisive questions often cut to the heart of the case and avoid broad theoretical discussions. You clerked for the celebrated Justice Thurgood Marshall — who called you “Shorty” — and were the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School. Since joining the Court, you have authored a number of powerful dissents. For example, in American Express v. Italian Colors, you criticized the majority’s enforcement of a forced arbitration agreement and said the decision meant that “The monopolist gets to use its monopoly power to insist on a contract effectively depriving its victims of all legal recourse.” You also authored a dissent advocating for a broad right to counsel for criminal defendants.

Despite your serious background and exacting reasoning, you’ve been dubbed the Fun Justice for your references to Spiderman, Mortal Kombat, and Dr. Seuss.

Justice Anthony Kennedy! Swing vote! You are most known for your influential role as the Court’s “swing voter” who sometimes agrees with the liberal wing of the court and sometimes sides with the conservatives. You are also the most senior member of the Court, with 28 years of service, and the only remaining Reagan appointee. You were confirmed with a bipartisan vote of 97-0, with three senators absent. You have sided with conservatives on religion, allowing prayer at the beginning of a legislative meeting and allowing a nativity scene and a menorah to be displayed outside of government buildings. You also side with conservatives on gun control, twice voting to strike down bans on handguns. But you have sided with liberal members of the court on limiting the death penalty and allowing Guantanamo detainees to bring claims in federal court.

You often try to evaluate the law in the context of the real world and are willing to consider scientific and sociological research as well as the laws in various states and other countries. This willingness to look at a broad range of information is evident in three of your most famous opinions protecting the rights of lesbian and gay couples — Lawrence v. Texas (rejecting anti-sodomy laws), U.S. v. Windsor (rejecting federally-imposed restrictions on same-sex marriage), and Obergefell v. Hodges (prohibiting bans on same-sex marriage).

Justice Stephen Breyer! Like a modern-day Socrates, you love asking lengthy hypotheticals and forcing lawyers to explain the scope of their arguments. Unlike some of your conservative colleagues, you think it’s important to look to the purpose and consequences of our laws and legal decisions. You are also willing to consider the laws of other countries when trying to reach decisions, especially for cases with international issues. (You seem to have an awful lot of time to write! You’ve written three books since joining the Court.)

Do you think international law is relevant when deciding questions of American law?

Never! Only American opinions should matter to American courts.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor! You are the first Latina/o justice and are known for saying that the perspective a “wise Latina” brings to the bench will be different from that of someone with a different life experience. Though you are generally considered part of the liberal wing of the Court, you were appointed to your district court seat by President George H. W. Bush. Sports fans likely know that, as a district judge, you issued an injunction that ended a months-long baseball strike just in time for opening day.

You have authored significant opinions on criminal justice, holding that age can be considered when deciding if a person has received a proper Miranda warning and arguing for reconsideration of privacy doctrines in an increasingly digital society. You dissented in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action and argued that a state affirmative action ban that places a special burden on students of color violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Lord Jim wrote:This is complete horse hockey...

I got:

Justice Stephen Breyer! Like a modern-day Socrates, you love asking lengthy hypotheticals and forcing lawyers to explain the scope of their arguments. Unlike some of your conservative colleagues, you think it’s important to look to the purpose and consequences of our laws and legal decisions. You are also willing to consider the laws of other countries when trying to reach decisions, especially for cases with international issues. (You seem to have an awful lot of time to write! You’ve written three books since joining the Court.)

How could I possibly get "You are also willing to consider the laws of other countries when trying to reach decisions" when I answered question 4:

Do you think international law is relevant when deciding questions of American law?

With the fourth option:

Never! Only American opinions should matter to American courts.

Lord Jim wrote:This is complete horse hockey...

I got:

Justice Stephen Breyer! Like a modern-day Socrates, you love asking lengthy hypotheticals and forcing lawyers to explain the scope of their arguments. Unlike some of your conservative colleagues, you think it’s important to look to the purpose and consequences of our laws and legal decisions. You are also willing to consider the laws of other countries when trying to reach decisions, especially for cases with international issues. (You seem to have an awful lot of time to write! You’ve written three books since joining the Court.)

How could I possibly get "You are also willing to consider the laws of other countries when trying to reach decisions" when I answered question 4:

Do you think international law is relevant when deciding questions of American law?

With the fourth option:

Never! Only American opinions should matter to American courts.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg! We all know you, Notorious RBG. Your popularity has really taken off in recent years, but you’ve got decades of experience fighting the good fight. You were rejected for a Supreme Court clerkship because of your gender, but got the last laugh (several times) by fighting sexism as both a lawyer and a judge. You authored a brief that helped convince the Court that the Equal Protection Clause forbids sex discrimination and laid the foundation for gender equality in the law — often by representing men who were harmed by codified sexism.

You are increasingly known for your passionate dissents. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a decision that allowed for-profit companies to refuse to cover contraceptives on religious grounds, you dissented and warned that “in a decision of startling breadth . . . the Court. . . has entered into a minefield.” You expressed similar outrage in your dissent in Shelby County v. Holder, the voting rights case that gutted the Voting Rights Act. Throwing out voter protections that have “worked and [are] continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” you wrote.

You probably had enough other good qualities to override that "America Only — First, Last, and Always" attitude of yours.

The Judicial Oath

The origin of the second oath is found in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which reads "the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices" to take a second oath or affirmation. From 1789 to 1990, the original text used for this oath (1 Stat. 76 § 8) was:



"I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."



In December 1990, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 replaced the phrase "according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution" with "under the Constitution." The revised Judicial Oath, found at 28 U. S. C. § 453, reads:



"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."




The Combined Oath

Upon occasion, appointees to the Supreme Court have taken a combined version of the two oaths, which reads:



"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Guinevere wrote:Hey! I still can't figure out why I *didnt* get her......

Sue U wrote:

Guinevere wrote:Hey! I still can't figure out why I *didnt* get her......

Because you picked "baseball" rather than "opera."

Guinevere wrote:Hey! I still can't figure out why I *didnt* get her......

Lord Jim wrote:No qualifiers, no exceptions.; nothing about "unless of course the Constitution and laws of the United States conflict with some rule passed by some bunch of foreigners"...

The members of the US Supreme Court are duty bound to make their decisions based on "the Constitution and laws of the United States" not based on "international law". If there is a conflict between the two, it is "the Constitution and laws of the United States" that trumps. (No pun intended)

If they do otherwise, they are in violation of their oath of office, and impeachment and removal would be entirely appropriate.

We are not like EU members who have surrendered their sovereign right to the supremacy of their laws to some foreign body...

• ◌ Yes! International law can offer valuable persuasive authority.
  ◌ I’m not sure how I feel about this issue.
  ◌ Blank stare.
  ◌ Never! Only American opinions should matter to American courts.

rubato wrote:

Guinevere wrote:Hey! I still can't figure out why I *didnt* get her......

So you could admire yourself? I don't think you can both admire her and BE her.


BTW I got Kagan as well.


yrs,
rubato