After each Supreme Court appointment in recent years, the arguments before the justices have gotten more energetic and forceful. Now, the two newest justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, are changing that dynamic even further ? and offering a glimpse of how they could reshape the court's liberal wing.
Sotomayor is far more talkative than was David Souter, the justice she succeeded. Yet she also is asking more pointed questions that reveal her thoughts on the law and her fact-based approach. "Slow down from the rhetoric and give me concrete details," she urged one lawyer.
Kagan jumps in more regularly, too, than the man who preceded her, John Paul Stevens. She immediately has developed a pattern of piercing questions. Stevens would sometimes gently suggest a point of view, but Kagan more directly lets her colleagues know her line of reasoning and often lays out the liberal viewpoint.
The new justices have brought a stronger voice on the left than the four liberals had before Sotomayor joined in 2009 and Kagan in 2010. Kagan particularly is putting forward broader legal arguments that could guide her colleagues' thinking, often in contrast to those set up by the court's five conservatives.
That ultimately could mean that the vacuum created by the departure of senior liberal justice Stevens ? who worked behind the scenes to build coalitions and moderate the court's conservative trend ? could be filled in a new fashion.
It is not yet clear whether the forcefulness of Kagan and Sotomayor during oral arguments eventually will produce more liberal decisions, but their activities are at least bringing more attention to their perspectives early on, before the justices meet to discuss and vote on a case.
"The two newest justices have really changed the dynamic," says Kansas University social psychology professor Lawrence Wrightsman, who has written about Supreme Court oral arguments. "Kagan and Sotomayor seem to have a more detailed and thought-through strategic position in what they say" to lawyers who come before the high court.
"The biggest difference is they are much more direct" than their predecessors, says University of Minnesota political science professor Timothy Johnson, who has compiled a database of arguments dating to the 1990s. "I think they are pinpointing the issues more."
All told, Supreme Court arguments ? which resumed last week after a four-week recess ? have become livelier affairs and may offer a glimpse into how the justices operate in the private confines of their conference room.
Kagan, who was the U.S. solicitor general before she donned the black robe, has revealed herself as a deft player who can work her way easily into question-and-answer sessions and cut to the heart of an issue. And in an era of sound bites and limited attention spans, she ? more than others on the left ? can serve up pithy, memorable quotes.
Source: http://feeds.abcnews.com/click.phdo?i=44340b7aa57e2a41f23f81ee0c42bf72
Mike Huckabee Saddam Hussein Hu Jintao Kim Jong Il Islam Karimov
No comments:
Post a Comment