As the dust settles over the bitterly partisan confirmation battles over Judge Garland and Justice Gorsuch, there is a large consensus that the Supreme Court is a damaged if not broken institution. Liberal commentators have been speculating, for the first time in 85 years, about the possibility of a Court packing plan the next time… more »
On March 20, the Senate will begin the confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch. Based on his meetings with a few Senate Democrats, it appears he will be reluctant, like most nominees, to answer any question relating to his specific views on already decided cases or the existing state of the law. This… more »
Constitutional scholars, Supreme Court commentators and judges and lawyers have long debated whether the Supreme Court is more of a political or legal institution. Given that the justices normally resolve cases implicating unclear constitutional text, contested history and fuzzy precedents, it is not surprising that they have significant discretion to decide cases consistent with their… more »
Professor Fred Smith, in a Feb. 5 Atlanta Journal-Constitution opinion piece, says Democrats should give Judge Neil Gorsuch a respectful and fair hearing. They should, and then they should vote against his confirmation.
The process by which judges are nominated and appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court is a political one, and designed… more »
Eric Segall, the Kathy and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law, presented his “wild and crazy idea” for the U.S. Supreme Court during the Holiday Luncheon for the Georgia State Law Board of Visitors and Law Alumni Council on Dec. 6. Segall posits that the Court should only have eight justices, evenly divided between… more »
Donald Trump’s election as the 45th president of the United States came as a surprise to many. Regardless of one’s political leanings, most people agree that Trump has at least one important job to do, and he needs to do it soon.
Justice Antonin Scalia, a member of the Supreme Court since 1986, passed away… more »
As the Supreme Court’s new term begins, many court watchers have observed that the justices don’t have the usual front-page, nationally important cases on their docket.
The hand-wringers are wrong—an evenly split Supreme Court would end a narrow majority imposing its out-of-step will and would be good for the country.
This week at the Southeastern Association of American Law Schools Annual Conference, I will be leading a discussion group commemorating the 25th anniversary of the nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas. On this blog, and in law reviews, I have been quite critical of Justice Thomas’ constitutional law jurisprudence. For this post, however, I… more »
How does a reliably liberal and feminist Supreme Court Justice get the New York Times Editorial Board, the Washington Post Editorial Board, and approximately 95 percent of Supreme Court commentators and law professors (most of whom reside on the left) to take sides with Donald Trump and against her? Unless you have been on a remote desert… more »