An interesting historical tidbit about the nomination of David Souter to the Supreme Court
It appears that folks in the Biden White House have learned from the mistakes made by prior Democratic Administrations.
Progressives are increasingly worried that Justice Breyer will overstay his time on the Court.
The Senate Minority Leader's remarks add some urgency to progressive appeals for Justice Breyer to retire.
President Biden's Third Slate of Judicial Nominees Continues Emphasis on Criminal Defense Experience
All three of today's appellate nominees have worked as public defenders.
The Biden White House follow the lead of the Bush (43) and Trump Administrations, in not allowing the ABA to evaluate potential nominees prior to their nomination.
What we know of the planned commission's membership makes it unlikely it will recommend court-packing. But that doesn't mean the issue will simply go away.
The BIden-Harris transition team is already prioritizing judicial nominations.
Video of R Street Institute Event with Two Ilyas—Myself and Ilya Shapiro Speaking about Our New Books
We discuss my book "Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom," and his "Supreme Disorder: The Politics of America's Highest Court."
Decisions that progressives don't like are not necessarily a sign that something has gone horribly wrong.
They have serious flaws, many of which are on display this week. But we are still better off with them than without them.
Plus: $150,000+ in fines in NYC's first weekend of new shutdowns, California ballot-box confusion, and more...
She's unlikely to cast a vote to strike down the law as a whole, and unlikely to have a decisive impact on its fate even if she does.
Imagine how things would be different had a 2002 Bush proposal to deescalate judicial nominations been adopted.
A 2016 op-ed by Benjamin Wittes and Miguel Estrada is worth revisiting.
The prospects are far from ideal. But it is still potentially feasible.
Faced with a choice between the Trump Administration and the law, these judges had no problem following the law.
Politicians' opinions about the maneuver depend on which party is in power.
Are we squandering a rare opportunity to learn more about the justices?
Clarifications and regrets.
Senate Republicans are torn between their hatred of voting on bills, their fear of poking the bear, and their love of confirming judges.
Jim Lindgren proposes a constitutional amendment banning court-packing. I'm all for it. But it can only pass if liberal Democrats get some reciprocal concession to support it.
Kavanaugh was correct: it was a circus. But he was the one who made it a circus - and for that (apart from anything that he may or may not have done in 1982) he should not be confirmed.
One of the points at issue in the debate over the sexual assault accusations against Brett Kavanaugh is whether the standards of proof used by the Senate should be those appropriate to a criminal trial or those of a job interview. The latter is the superior approach.
The symposium includes contributions by various legal commentators, including Bruce Ackerman, Mari Matsuda, Deborah Rhode, and myself.
If you want to show your support for the accused or the accuser, stay away from these.
The debate over the sexual assault accusations against Brett Kavanaugh is a striking example of partisan bias at work.
It includes contributions by a variety of legal scholars and commentators, including myself.
The Supreme Court needs to have the power to overturn "settled" constitutional decisions in order to prevent the permanent entrenchment of terrible precedents.
Conservative support for racial profiling is deeply problematic. But the e-mail leaked by Sen. Cory Booker actually shows Brett Kavanaugh advocating "race-neutral" post-9/11 security policies.
No great surprises so far. But some notable points nonetheless.
Claims that Kavanaugh is outside the legal "mainstream" are misguided, and mostly just reflect growing partisan polarization over legal issues. The real danger is not that we will have non-mainstream Supreme Court justices, but that some mainstream ideas are badly wrong.
The Post has a symposium in which a a variety of legal commentators (myself included) discuss what they consider to be Judge Kavanaugh's most important opinions.
A new proposal to give Democrats additional Supreme Court appointments by temporarily increasing the size of the Supreme Court would cause much the same problems as conventional court-packing would.
The debate over Judge Kavanaugh's views on executive power actually encompasses four separate issues. On some of them his views bode well for the future, on others not so much.