Home  |  Previous Post: More Google Print: Fair Use and Inefficient Bundling   |   Next Post: White Settlement, Ave Maria, Sex Offenders, and Exclusionary Vibes

November 11, 2005

Cass's CBI: Beyond Marbury

On Tuesday, October 25, Cass Sunstein gave a talk in the Chicago's Best Ideas Series entitled "Beyond Marbury: The President's Power To Say What the Law Is." For those who have seen Cass discussing the judiciary a lot lately, you'll enjoy his foray into the executive branch. Audio of the event is available here. For instructions on listening to podcasts, click here. For more explanation of the content of the talk, see the blurb below the fold.

The blurb we used to advertise the talk is as follows. "Under Marbury v. Madison, it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." But as a matter of actual practice, judgments about "what the law is" are often made by the President, not the judiciary. Professor Sunstein argues that the President is in the best position to make the judgments of policy and principle on which resolution of statutory ambiguities often depends. New evidence about judicial votes, introduced here for the first time, shows that when federal judges disagree with the President about the interpretation of federal law, the judges' own predilection are often a motivating factor. Justice Scalia, for example, is far less likely to defer to liberal decisions than Justice Breyer is; and Republican-appointed judges show far more conservative voting patterns, in reviewing the decisions of the President, than Democratic appointees do. This evidence supports the President's power to interpret the law, because the meaning of statutory law should not depend on whether Democratic appointees or Republican appointees decide the relevant cases." Enjoy.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yikes! I'll have to listen to the podcast. My initial thought is that at least judges have to pretend not to be biased, and have some limits on their discretion. Also, the federal judiciary seems generally rather moderate.

The president, with no such limitations, would be free to move the law as far as possible in his direction, and a president with different views could presumably move it in another direction. So much for predictability or certainty!

Bring back the Stuarts!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.