;

Supreme Court



  • The Supreme Court We Need

    by Linda Greenhouse

    The veteran Supreme Court reporter argues that the nation needs the court to enable government to actually take action to solve big national problems. 



  • The History of 'Court Packing'

    Historian Julian Zelizer discusses the history and fallout of FDR's 1937 plan to "pack" the court, and similarities and differences that might come into play in 2021. 



  • Pack the Courts

    by Larry Kramer

    The former Dean of Stanford Law School argues "once cooperation breaks down, the only play to restore it is tit-for-tat. It’s the only way both sides can learn that neither side wins unless they cooperate."



  • Our Undemocratic Constitution

    by Julie C. Suk

    "We should not misconstrue the success of the midcentury Court: the few bright moments of inclusive constitutionalism, from Brown to Roe, did not make our Constitution inclusive and democratic."



  • 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.



  • The Supreme Court Is Helping Republicans Rig Elections

    by Adam Serwer

    Historian Lawrence Goldstone supports the argument that today's Roberts Court is continuing the jurisprudence of the post-Reconstruction era by denying the racism of restrictions on voting even as nonwhite voters are disenfranchised.