A Stitch in Haste

Leftist economist and unconditional Social Security reform obstructionist Angry Bear:

[The Cato Institute's assertion that the Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor that there is no legal right to Social Security benefits] is "just a pathetic misrepresentation of what this Court decision involved."

This is, of course, utter nonsense. Cato is absolutey accurate about the case.

One of the first, and perhaps hardest, things you learn in law school is that major cases can have both narrow and broad holdings. This is especially true when the court expressly declares not just a simple decision but also an entire legal doctrine.

You don't need to be a lawyer to know some famous historical examples of narrow versus broad holdings:

--The Angry Bear holding of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), is that the Supreme Court does not have the power to issue writs of mandamus to government officials. I guess Angry Bear would say that it is "a pathetic misrepresentation" to suggest that the holding was also about the broad power of judicial review.

--The Angry Bear holding of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), is that the state of Maryland could not tax a branch of the Bank of the United States. Since there is no Bank of the United States anymore, I suppose Angry Bear would say the case is totally irrelevant today, and that it is "a pathetic misrepresentation" to suggest that the case's holding was also about the meaning of the Necessary & Proper Clause.

--The Angry Bear holding of Brown v. Board of Ed., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), must be that Topeka, Kansas, engaged in unconstitutional segregation in its schools — and nothing more. Be careful not to engage in "a pathetic misrepresentation" by using that flowery "separate but equal is inherently unequal" quote in any other context.

--The Angry Bear holding of Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), would I suppose be that a state cannot deny a married woman access to contraception. Everyone who rehashes all that "right to privacy" and "penumbras, formed by emanations" stuff in any other context is, Angry Bear will remind you, engaging in "a pathetic misrepresentation."

---

The Angry Bear holding of Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), is that a resident alien who is subsequently deported for being a Communist has no claim to any Social Security benefits he otherwise might have accrued but for his deportation.

So when people like Michael Tanner of Cato, or me, say that Flemming v. Nestor really holds that there is no legal right, of any kind, to Social Security benefits, and that Congress can, constitutionally, alter or even eliminate benefits altogether at any time, are we engaging in "a pathetic misrepresentation"?

No pun intended, but you be the judge:

But each worker's benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the national economy while actively employed, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.
...
To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act.
...
We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The opinion says "a person," not a resident alien, not a Communist, not a criminal, but a person, has no Constitutional right to Social Security benefits.

There you have it: the Angry Bear holding and the actual opinion. Where do you think the line between a "broad holding" and "a pathetic misrepresentation" should be drawn?

Last Year -- In Honor of Labor Day: Where the Heck is Beck?