Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2016 after Justice Antonin Scalia died, opening a seat on the bench in the middle of an election year.
Ginsburg’s advice against such schemes was sound, but her liberal fans will stop at nothing should they get the chance to change the Supreme Court.
The idea of an executive branch or SCOTUS nominee being confirmed by a Senate controlled by the opposing party may very well be dead.
Brett Kavanaugh takes his seat amid debates about the Supreme Court’s ‘legitimacy,’ with substantial portions of the population thinking he’s a rapist.
Whatever happens to the Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats have normalized another illiberal position in their pretend crusade to save America from Donald Trump.
If judges are a vindication of Trump, are they also a vindication of Mitch McConnell? And if so, does a good Supreme Court really compensate for a lousy Congress?
Democrats are trying to use Mitch McConnell’s 2016 political maneuvering against him, saying that the Senate should halt the nomination process until after the election.
Our discourse is full of rhetorical terms used to frighten or cajole the public in a given direction. But these words don’t mean what you think they mean.
It looks like Senate Democrats will block the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. It also means the end of the filibuster. Which is a shame.
They should follow the precedent Harry Reid set in 2013, and confirm Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch with 51 votes instead of 60.
Senate Republicans can confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominees without using the filibuster-killing nuclear option. Here’s how.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, joins Federalist Radio to discuss the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch.
The Supreme Court was specifically designed to avoid almost every idea term-limit advocates think bolsters their arguments.
Struggling to accept the consequences of electoral defeat, progressive activists are now desperately clinging to a wild conspiracy theory about how they can retain control of the Supreme Court.
When Donald Trump, uninhibited by checks and balances, names his cabinet, be sure to thank Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and others who killed the filibuster.
Congress in 1866 was concerned about an unpopular, reactionary president using the Supreme Court to restrict the people’s rights. In 2017, we will likely find ourselves in a similar spot.
‘We’re a nation of laws, not men. . . We have laws, and we apply them universally and equally for all people.’
To truly merit a place on the Supreme Court—whether for Merrick Garland or someone else—the next appointee must understand the constitutional power he or she exercises.
The showdown between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will spur many thoughtful people to rethink the structure of America’s basic political institutions.
- Why Criminal Prosecution Might Be The Least Of Ilhan Omar’s Legal ConcernsRep. Ilhan Omar needs competent immigration counsel to continue reading >
- In Royal Showdown, Queen Elizabeth Bests Meghan MarkleHarry is alleged to have yelled at staff, ‘What Meghacontinue reading >
- How A Feminist Juror’s Lies Could Get Harvey Weinstein’s Conviction Tossed OutIt doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce that a pcontinue reading >