Politico/Morning Consult have some polling data out, taken after the Kavanaugh SCOTUS pick, and Sixty-one percent support term limits for Supreme Court justices, support that crosses party affiliation; two-thirds of polled Democrats and 58 percent of Republicans. 20% overall oppose limits.
Each side is predictable in one respect – they overreach.
If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, all nine Justices of SCOTUS will be Ivy League affiliated in their education. But the Presidency is not any less upper-crust in credentials of late, to say nothing for the rest of government.
President Donald Trump has made his second SCOTUS pick of his administration: Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh will be nominated to replace Anthony Kennedy.
If you follow the news surrounding hopefuls for the empty SCOTUS seat, you undoubtedly know that Barrett, a federal circuit judge and Notre Dame law grad, is the mother of seven children. In fact, judging by the media’s profiles of her, this is the most interesting thing about her…
Tea leaves, prognostications, wild guesses, and SCOTUS predictions sure to go wrong. Everyone can play in the “Who will be the next justice for the Supreme Court of the United States?”
A state may not require public employees to pay dues to a union if he or she does not wish to be a member, ruled a 5-4 SCOTUS today in Janus v. AFSCME, reversing a Seventh Circuit decision.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced his retirement. His pending vacancy will be the 2nd appointment by President Trump.
The predictable split of the Court on this matter portends the inevitable split between the left and right leaning citizenry, as many decisions this term have done. With the strong, provocative rhetoric from our President which underlies the whole thing, it is hard to reconcile the two sides.
The Supreme Court of the United States this week ruled in favor of privacy in Carpenter v. United States, a case out of the sixth circuit involving the warrantless search of a defendant’s cell phone location records.
Today’s SCOTUS decisions are not world-rocking, but the largely homogeneous agreement is noteworthy. It is likewise noteworthy that neither of these decisions lend themselves to much partisan hand–wringing
The case involved the practice in Ohio of purging voters who have not voted in several years and who fail to return a notice card confirming their address. The case, Husted v Randolph Institute, et al., concerned whether the practice violated the National Voter Registration Act. SCOTUS says it does not.
SCOTUS did not issue an opinion on whether a baker may legally refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding; rather, it focused on what it saw as the Commission’s non-neutral, “hostile” handling of Phillips’ case.
The Supreme Court released its opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, upholding the enforceability of individual arbitration mandates in employment contracts.In theory, arbitration is supposed to be economical. However, in practice, some critics point to the exorbitant cost to the parties, if one is used.
A ruling that will have dramatic impact on both sports, economics, and media has been issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 7-2 decision struck down the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, paving the way for legalized sports gambling outside of Nevada.
Entirely As Expected
The Supreme Court hangs in the balance. Will Joe Biden throw away this shot?
Elections, it turns out, have consequences.
No Scalia? No problem! When all eight of the surviving SCOTUS Justices agree on the result, we’re sure to get a nice, clear, definite rule of law… right?
Were a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton to nominate him to the Supreme Court, would Barack Obama’s service as President be reason to foresee that he’d become one of the great Justices on the Supreme Court? What about his lack of prior judicial experience or his lack of scholarly publications?
History repeats, cycles become complete… Word to the (partisan) drumbeat.
One case to rule them all, One Court to mind them,
One rule to govern the States and in its holdings bind them,
In the Land of Washington where the Justices decide.
Justice Kennedy provides a substantial gain for citizen initiatives.
The Supreme Court adjourns for the Term with decisions about redistricting, air pollution, and executions. Burt Likko summarizes each of them, and offers a sad observation about judicial comity losing one of its most prominent sentinels,
Obergefell was announced by SCOTUS this morning. 5-4 in favor of same-sex marriage rights. Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to both issues SSM licenses and to recognize licenses issued by other states. Opinion by Kennedy. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all dissent, mostly joining one anothers’ dissents. My office scheduled a 9:30 new client intake…
Chief Justice Roberts was nearly silent during oral argument, and then wrote the 6-3 majority opinion in today’s Obamacare case. Burt Likko replies to Justice Antonin Scalia’s accusations of through-the-looking-glass judicial activism.
Wednesday, the Supreme Court will entertain the latest challenge to Obamacare. If you can make it all the way through this post, you’re going to understand what’s going on way better than your neighbors. Added bonus: a significant detour through the jurisprudence of piscene spoliation, which you’ve no doubt all been anxiously awaiting.
One of Burt Likko’s greatest hits, offered in celebration of #judicialreviewday.
In just over two weeks, some stuff is gonna get real at One First Street Northeast, yo.
James Hanley doubts the argument against subsidies for federal health care exchanges is bonkers.
Same cast, brand new season! Burt Likko offers a look at some of the high points of the Supreme Court’s docket for the 2014-2015 Term.
Concluding the Supreme Court’s Term are Harris v. Quinn and the newly-renamed Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Hint: both majority opinions are from Samuel Alito.
It’s the close of the term, and here’s a recap of the major cases from SCOTUS this year. Some surprising results. Some, not so much. Alsotoo: we’re waiting until Monday for the Hobby Lobby and Harris decisions.
This summer, SCOTUS is expected to take yet another step in declaring that false statements are protected by the first amendment — provided they’re uttered for political reasons.
Despite having lived in New York City for several years by that point, I had never attended the Pride parade. The reasons why I hadn’t in any given year escape me now, along with all the other irrelevant details of my life. But that year I decided to go because the Supreme Court had just…