Supreme Court: Chemerinsky and Eastman Disagree on Everything

Today I attended the Federalist Society’s annual Supreme Court round up. Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and John Eastman comment on the Supreme Court’s last term, moderated by Judge Sandra Ikuta of the Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal.

It is always interesting to hear two eminent professors discuss the Supreme Court rulings from two diametrically opposed positions (Chemerinsky as very liberal; Eastman as (very) conservative).

They hit on all of the cases of the past term, including Hobby Lobby (does a family have a right to its religious beliefs when it forms a corporation?), McCutcheon (does limiting the number of candidates you contribute to further the goal of preventing corruption?), Schuette (can the voters vote to end affirmative action?), Harris (can workers be forced to join a union?) and McCullen (is a speech zone around an abortion clinic constitutional?). There was not even one case where the two professors agreed.

Judge Ikuta noted that the Ninth District Courts of Appeal were reversed in 11 out of 12 cases and that the one affirmed case was affirmed but the Supreme Court did not agree with the Ninth District’s reasoning. Although I am not a constitutional law attorney, this program was very interesting and I always feel like a learn a lot. Professors Chemerinsky and Eastman are very good speakers and you can see why they are leaders in their field.