President Trump announces a superlative pick for to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
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.
I have a contribution in it, along with a variety of prominent legal scholars and commentators.
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.
Background on Senator Leahy's line of questioning about allegedly stolen e-mails and documents from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
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.
In 1999, Judge Kavanaugh suggested that the Supreme Court case that forced Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes may have been wrongly decided. But it's not entirely clear what he now thinks about the issue.
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.
Those who have been through the process rarely have nice things to say about it.
Judge Kavanaugh is a highly qualified jurist. I applaud several aspects of his record, while having reservations about others.