That may have been true about two decades ago, but conservative is as conservative does.
Two tidbits from the New York Times that I did not know.
Justice Gorsuch joins the three dissenters on severability. What about Justices Thomas and Barrett?
Also, Judges Kacsmaryk and Ho seem vindicated on the statute of limitations to challenge mifepristone.
Knowing all that we know, I struggle to see how putting Harris in the White House would "save conservatism."
Nat Lewin relays the story from his 1962 clerkship with Justice Harlan.
Maybe the Roberts Court was right and the Burger Court was wrong.
Judge Ezra boasted about knowing the judges on the Fifth Circuit, being sworn into the Texas Bar by the Chief Judge's husband, and threatened to have the Deputy Solicitor General's lawyer removed from the courtroom.
Does it mean going to the opera together, or a willingness to be persuaded?
Justice Gorsuch likes the new oral argument format and he writes his own opinions.
The law would direct lower courts how to reject claims of presidential immunity, and strip SCOTUS of appellate review.
There is little here that can't be gleaned from the docket and the split opinions.
We learn very little new: Roberts made no efforts to appeal to the left, as he sought to reclaim his Court.
My speculation was just the tip.
Three proposals, that lack any specificity, will go nowhere, fast.
What stuff are the Court's middle three Justices made of?
Does Justice Kagan really want Chief Judge Kimberly Moore to give Justice Thomas the Pauline Newman treatment?
"He's become a very shrill old man. I used to really like him, and I used to believe all of his stuff about judicial minimalism was sincere. Now I see it as a political charade."
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
