-
Archives
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
-
Meta
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
Kill the filibuster. Now.
A real talking filibuster is rare enough that it deserves plaudits, even if it’s curly-haired Rand Paul doing the blabbing.
The hysterics over the filibuster
Get rid of the filibuster, an undemocratic vestige of an earlier time when the Senate stood against the forces of reaction. Spare me the drool about the Senate as a place where cooler heads prevail. They might have except when … Continue reading
What we lost when we lost Merrick Garland
Thomas Geoghegan ponders what we lost when Clinton lost the election, didn’t flip the Senate, and couldn’t get Merrick Garland confirmed: By a five to four vote, gerrymandering of congressional districts would have been struck down. Even more than “money … Continue reading
Behold — Neil Gorsuch
I defer to Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog: “[Neil] Gorsuch is still a very natural choice for any Republican president to nominate as a replacement for Scalia — someone who would espouse similar principles, stand firm on similar doctrinal commitments, reach … Continue reading
America, we’re in for it
Ezra Klein on the president-elect’s hysterical tweets last night (to which I won’t link): I’ve noticed a lot of people on Twitter seem to think Trump’s tweet is scary because it’s false, but the actually scary interpretation is that he … Continue reading
Making the personal the political: Loving
Before her own death in 2008, Mildred Loving eulogized her husband Richard thusly: “He took care of me.” Apart from the Fourteenth Amendment considerations, the Supreme Court case heard in 1967 bearing their name should have pivoted on Mildred’s sentence. … Continue reading
What do Warren Burger and RFK have in common?
Michael J. Graetz and Linda Greenhouse and – The Burger Court and the Rise of the Judicial Right With his windswept cottonball hair and authoritative burr, Warren Burger looked the part of a chief justice to a boy growing up … Continue reading
Thurgood Marshall and how minorities should respond
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was not the only justice to say things that caused Beltway heads to blush. From 1987: Asked by Mr. Rowan to rate some of the Presidents and their impact on racial justice in his lifetime, Justice Marshall … Continue reading
Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the myth of objectivity
To revere objectivity is to be American. The myth of objectivity is born from the reality of empire. Only a country whose formidable and terrible abundance changed the outcomes of two world wars, removed heads of state from Iran and … Continue reading
Clarence Thomas and Jeffrey Toobin
Jeffrey Toobin has made a cottage industry of comprehending the mind of Clarence Thomas, and insofar as he explains how the justice’s jurisprudence differs from the late Antonin Scalia he’s fine: Far more than even Scalia did, Thomas endorses originalism—the … Continue reading
