Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ attempt to defend the independence of the judiciary, in light of President Trump’s comments that courts are politicized, did more harm than good.
The U.S. judicial system has a process for dealing with allegations of a crime, and Christine Blasey Ford should have to follow it, like any other accuser.
An expanded Supreme Court would be more effective, and make each appointment less of an apocalyptic event.
‘When the Constitution was written, people were expected to die in their 50s. The framers never contemplated that these terms would regularly go to 30-plus years as they do now.’
The proposal is simple: when Democrats next hold the presidency and Senate, they should pack the courts to ensure that the Left can achieve its goals.
When a president or legislature is faced with following either a court ruling they know has no constitutional basis or the actual Constitution, they should heed Hamilton’s advice.
We have divergent interpretive theories that map onto ideologically sorted parties, so is it any surprise that elections are high-stakes for judges?
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards is right: Courts matter. They matter because liberal judges long ago stopped interpreting the law and started inventing it.
Every four-year term, a president appoints around a fifth of the judiciary. They continue shaping our world long after the president who appointed them has left the White House.
If our system of government devolves into a political tug-of-war between the executive branch and the judiciary, we all lose.
This seems to be all just one more episode of Trumpian signaling or, as the court narrated, using a ‘bully pulpit to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement’ in the future.
How increasingly letting states and citizens sue to stop laws and regulations they don’t like, such as President Trump’s immigration order, can politicize courts and end self-government.
If the Wyoming Supreme Court is permitted to insert an unstated requirement upon judges, what prevents some future court from reading pastors, priests, and bishops into the same decision?
During Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings senators and commenters are batting around words like ‘textualist,’ ‘originalist,’ and ‘evolutionist.’ Here’s an illustration.
Even a cursory look at Neil Gorsuch’s opinions shows his disdain for a conventional wisdom that has unfortunately guided the style of countless writers.
An umpire would (or should) throw Cork’s case out. Like it or not, the rule of law demands that President Trump and his organization be treated like all others that are similarly situated.
The 3-2 decision of the Wyoming Supreme Court says holding mainstream Christian beliefs undermines Judge Ruth Neely’s impartiality even though marriages aren’t part of her duties.
Only by holding nominees’ feet to the substantive constitutional fire can we make confirmation hearings great again.
A federal judge in Hawaii relied on his feelings and flawed interpretation of Trump’s campaign rhetoric to block his latest travel ban.
- Top 10 Reasons You Should Own An AR-15Second to the muskets used in our revolutionary and civcontinue reading >
- The Stigma Against My Conservative Politics Is Worse Than The Stigma Of Being GayEverything I was told to fear about being openly gay hacontinue reading >
- The Feminist Life Script Has Made Many Women Miserable. Don’t Let It Sucker YouWomen need and deserve their own life script, one that continue reading >