;

SCOTUS



  • Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Philosophy Doesn’t Hold Up to Scrutiny

    by Angus King and Heather Cox Richardson

    "To put it bluntly, the whole premise of originalism is nonsense in that it pretends to make the work of the Supreme Court look straightforward and mechanical, like 'calling balls and strikes,' in Justice John Roberts’s famous phase."



  • Amy Coney Barrett’s Philosophy Has Far Worse Roots Than Most Americans Know

    by Simon Gilhooley

    At the core of originalism is a fundamentally conservative effort to limit the possibilities of our constitutional order to the imagination of historical figures from the 18th century, which included racial hierarchy and support for chattel slavery.


  • FDR Was Right to Propose Enlarging the Court

    by James D. Robenalt

    Franklin Roosevelt's error in 1937 was not to propose expanding the court, it was to fail to explain and defend his popular political reasons for doing so.



  • Religious Identity And Supreme Court Justices – A Brief History

    by Nomi Stolzenberg

    In recent decades, religious influence on the Court has been shaped by conservatives of different faiths, construed as part of a mythical Judeo-Christian tradition, coalescing around a common agenda defined less by affiliation with a religious denomination than with opposition to liberalism and secularism.



  • Which Constitution is Amy Coney Barrett Talking About?

    by Jamelle Bouie

    The Times columnist argues that the original meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments establishes a constitutional vision of equality and civil rights that conservative originalists ignore. 



  • Coney Barrett’s Moment of Truth

    by Garrett Epps

    "At the center of this moral swamp is St. Amy, a person whose life gives many real evidences of high morals and deep faith and good works. Why would such a person lend herself to such a tawdry charade?"  



  • How SCOTUS Nominations Became All-Out War

    by Robert L. Tsai

    The rise of national parties, the use of the judiciary to advance policy goals, and the decision of Republican leadership to consolidate a narrow electoral base have made judicial nominations a partisan battle the Founders did not adequately anticipate, according to American U. Law professor Robert Tsai.



  • President Washington and the Character of the First Supreme Court

    by Lindsay M. Chervinsky

    The first Supreme Court was not the magisterial institution we know today. Both Congress and the executive branch saw its role in political terms, and its composition as subject to change to reflect the shifting needs of the nation. 



  • The Supreme Court Used to be Openly Political. It Traded Partisanship for Power

    by Rachel Shelden

    Americans once assumed that the constitutionality of a given law was a matter to be settled through legislative politics and elections, and selected judges on a partisan basis. Today's court is no less political or ideological, but can exert more power because of its nominal freedom from partisan politics. 



  • Sotomayor: Judges should pull together

    “If we, as an institution, don’t find the way to find that middle, we stand a chance of going the way that our other branches of government have gone, and losing the respect that is at the core of our institution.”