So often in modern conversation you hear complaints about how out of touch and damaging the Supreme Court has become. Whether from Bush v. Gore, to Citizen’s United, to the more recently destructive Hobby Lobby decision, to name a bare few, the cries against SCOTUS are getting louder by the term. Yet far too often that hue and cry is by lay people and concerned activists, and the scholars and professors serve up a more nuanced take with pulled punches steeped in complicated case law and argument. Not Dean Chemerinsky. This is a full on broadside against what the court has become and, maybe, what it always has been once the romanticized veneer of reverence is stripped away.
|By: bmaz Sunday September 28, 2014 1:59 pm|
|By: Daniel Walters Saturday October 12, 2013 1:59 pm|
In his recent book In the Balance: Law and Politics on the Roberts Court, Mark Tushnet does not disagree that politics and the Supreme Court go hand in hand. There is no denying that the Justices have political views and that those political views often influence how they decide cases. Professor Tushnet carefully dissects and criticizes the now infamous “umpire” analogy that Chief Justice John Roberts used in his confirmation hearing, replacing it with what he takes as the much more realistic and intellectually honest portraits of judging offered by Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
But where In the Balance makes its greatest contribution is in tempering the urge to dismiss the Court’s behavior as purely political.
|By: Glenn W. Smith Sunday March 3, 2013 9:30 am|
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a challenge to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The conservative justices lobbed hostile and for the most part uninformed questions at defenders of the historic legislation. It’s obvious that those judges couldn’t give a fig about the dignity of man or the destiny of democracy.
|By: Jon Walker Sunday July 3, 2011 5:00 pm|
To understand how legitimate the 14th amendment option is, it is important to think what would be the outcome in a reverse situation – where government contractors, employees, bond holders, soldiers, doctors, senior citizens, etc… all could, in theory, have standing to constitutionally challenge a failure to raise the debt ceiling.
|By: Jon Walker Monday June 27, 2011 11:30 am|
The Roberts Court continues its work turning America into corporatocracy with a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling today just struck down a provision (PDF) of Arizona’s public campaign financing system that would provide publicly financed candidates some matching funds if their opponents started raising large quantities of private money.