Tuesday audio. Abstention II papers due Monday. Please note that the site for SPOTS evaluations is now open; please fill them out--we do welcome the feedback.
We continue with Plaut and the new separation of powers principle the Court announced. Can that square with FRCP 60(b)?
We will spend the rest of the class considering different examples of Congress regulating the Court and whether those impermissibly invade the "judicial power." Read the scholarly debates over jurisdiction stripping; although we will not discuss this, it informs much of our conversation. In addition to the Chief's Letter and the Cameras in the Courtroom Act (both on the blog), consider the constitutional validity of the following:
• Believing opinions are too long and thus impenetrable for ordinary citizens, Congress enacts a law limiting majority opinions to 7500 words, dissents to 5000 words, and concurrences to 2500 words.
• In resolving a case, the court shall:
• Issue one per curiam (for the Court, no named author) opinion representing the judgment of the Court and the opinion of a majority. It shall not indicate vote counts.
• No justice shall write a separate opinion.
• If a majority of the Court cannot agree on a rationale for a judgment, the Court shall issue an order summarily affirming or reversing, with no opinion and not establishing precedent.
• Congress enacts a code of ethics binding on SCOTUS.
• Congress refuses to appropriate money for the courts in a given year, other than to pay the salaries of all Article III judges.
For all of these, consider whether the answer as to the permissibility differs for SCOTUS than for lower courts. If so, what makes SCOTUS different and does that difference justify or require different treatment on these matters?
