Live Blog Archive
Walker: When should the court intervene?
Walker asks: What are the criteria? When does it become right for the court to weigh in on these issues?
Olson: "Depends on what the state is trying to do and how it affects people. It will be different depending on the facts. If I read the cases going back to 1886 when the Court struck down restrictions on the rights of Chinese to operate a laundry, I think court is making a decision about whether it needs more information about what the state is trying to accomplish, whether it is being done on a narrow basis, not over inclusive or underinclusive, I think these facts aid the decision and the record this decision will have in reviewed by court of appeals, and aid in the understanding of the American people.
“I thought we didn’t need the trial, but I thought it was enormously enriching and important undertaking." (Can you suck up to the judge any more Ted? : ) )
Olson doesn't make a case for originalism or restraint. He does sneak in -- the chinese laundry case -- and attempt to use SSM to revive the Lochner line of substantive due process. Interesting.
Walker: The Supreme Court in Baker v Nelson decided it was not ripe. That was 1972. What has happened in 38 years since?
Olson: Among the things that have happened are Romer, Lawrence v. Texas, a lot of other things have happened. Changes in the ballot propositions. Lots of factual things that are different. The Supreme Court rejected the opportunity to take a miscegenation case in 1955. The same issue was before the court in Zablocki where there was a summary of NO I mean turner v. safely—the case about rights for prisoners—
Walker: What year was that?
Olson fumbling
Walker: One of your colleagues will get that.
(Turner v Safley was 1987.)
Comments