Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court of the United States (12)
- Neil Gorsuch (4)
- Citizens United v. FEC (3)
- Election law (3)
- Judicial confirmation (3)
-
- Judicial legitimacy (3)
- 2016 Presidential Election (2)
- Cameras in courtrooms (2)
- Campaign finance (2)
- John Roberts (2)
- Oral argument recordings (2)
- Roe v. Wade (2)
- Shelby County v. Holder (2)
- Textualism (2)
- Transparency (2)
- Voting Rights Act (2)
- 115th Congress (1)
- Antonin Scalia (1)
- Baker v. Carr (1)
- Barry Goldwater (1)
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Bush v. Gore (1)
- Celebrity culture (1)
- Clarence Thomas (1)
- Confirmation hearings (1)
- Conservative libertarianism (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Donald Trump (1)
- Extrajudicial speech (1)
- Gerrymandering (1)
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
What Members Of Congress Say About The Supreme Court And Why It Matters, Carolyn Shapiro
What Members Of Congress Say About The Supreme Court And Why It Matters, Carolyn Shapiro
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Republican and Democratic senators took strikingly different approaches to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. Republicans focused on judicial process—what judges are supposed to do, how they are constrained, and the significance of the constitutional separation of powers—evoking rhetoric long used by the political right. Democrats, by contrast, focused primarily on case outcomes, complaining, for example, that Gorsuch favored “the big guy” over “the little guy” in cases he decided as a judge on the Tenth Circuit. This Article critiques the Democrats’ failure to discuss judicial process and to promote their own affirmative vision of the judiciary and the Constitution. A …
The Supreme Court And American Politics: Symposium Introduction, Christopher W. Schmidt, Carolyn Shapiro
The Supreme Court And American Politics: Symposium Introduction, Christopher W. Schmidt, Carolyn Shapiro
Chicago-Kent Law Review
No abstract provided.
Keynote Address: Judging The Political And Political Judging: Justice Scalia As Case Study, Richard L. Hasen
Keynote Address: Judging The Political And Political Judging: Justice Scalia As Case Study, Richard L. Hasen
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This is a revised version of a Keynote Address delivered at “The Supreme Court and American Politics,” a symposium held October 17, 2017 at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. In this Address, Professor Hasen considers through the lens of Justice Scalia’s opinions the role that views of the political process play, at least rhetorically, in how Supreme Court Justices decide cases. It focuses on Justice Scalia’s contradictory views on self-dealing and incumbency protection across a range of cases, comparing campaign finance on the one hand to partisan gerrymandering, voter identification laws, political patronage, and ballot access rules on the other. …
Above Politics: Congress And The Supreme Court In 2017, Jason Mazzone
Above Politics: Congress And The Supreme Court In 2017, Jason Mazzone
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The Supreme Court figured prominently in the November 2016 elections because of the vacancy on the Court that resulted from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. This Essay picks up the story by examining the place of the Supreme Court in national politics during 2017. It traces congressional efforts to respond to statutory and constitutional rulings by the Court as well as steps to regulate the operations of the Court and the work of the Justices. Although in 2017 Republicans and Democrats introduced numerous bills directed at the Court, these bills were generally modest in scope and, even so, did …
Neil Gorsuch And The Ginsburg Rules, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.
Neil Gorsuch And The Ginsburg Rules, Lori A. Ringhand, Paul M. Collins Jr.
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Using empirical data on every question asked and answered at every hearing from 1939–2017, we explore this “rule,” and its attribution to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We demonstrate three things. First, the Ginsburg Rule is poorly named, given that the practice of claiming a privilege to not respond to certain types of questions predates the …
Taking Judicial Legitimacy Seriously, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Taking Judicial Legitimacy Seriously, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Chief Justice Roberts appears worried about judicial legitimacy. In Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, he explicitly worries about the message the Court would send if it wades into the gerrymandering debate. More explicitly, he worries about “the status and integrity” of the Court if is seen as taking sides in politically charged controversies. Similarly, during his confirmation hearing, Roberts warned that the Court has a limited role in our constitutional scheme and must stay within it. To decide cases on the basis of policy and not law would compromise the Court’s legitimacy. This Essay is skeptical. For one, …
The Consequences Of Citizens United: What Do The Lawyers Say?, Ann Southworth
The Consequences Of Citizens United: What Do The Lawyers Say?, Ann Southworth
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This Essay examines a polarized world of advocacy over campaign finance regulation in the Roberts Court. It considers what lawyers who filed party and amicus briefs in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have to say about the consequences of the decision. It shows that the lawyers generally agree about the ruling’s direct consequences but strongly disagree about whether those consequences are good or bad for the country and what lessons the public should draw. This Essay also explores the competing frames that these lawyers bring to questions about money in politics and their competing perspectives about government and where …
The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court And The 2016 Presidential Campaign, Christopher W. Schmidt
The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court And The 2016 Presidential Campaign, Christopher W. Schmidt
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This Article considers how presidential candidates use the Supreme Court as an issue in their election campaigns. I focus in particular on 2016, but I try to make sense of this extraordinary election by placing it in the context of presidential elections over the past century.
In the presidential election of 2016, circumstances seemed perfectly aligned to force the Supreme Court to the front of public debate, but neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton treated the Court as a central issue of their campaigns. Trump rarely went beyond a brief mention of the Court in his campaign speeches; Clinton basically …
Will The Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics In A Polarized America, Kevin J. Mcmahon
Will The Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics In A Polarized America, Kevin J. Mcmahon
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This Article examines the concept of a “minority Justice,” meaning a Supreme Court Justice appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote and confirmed with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition. Specifically, Neil Gorsuch was the first “minority Justice,” receiving the support of senators who had collected nearly 20 million fewer votes than those in opposition (54,098,387 to 73,425,062). From there, the Article considers the significance this development, first by examining some of the foundational work of the regime politics …
Claiming Neutrality And Confessing Subjectivity In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro
Claiming Neutrality And Confessing Subjectivity In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Supreme Court confirmation hearings provide a rare opportunity for the American people to hear what (would-be) justices think about the nature of judging and the role of the Supreme Court. In recent years, nominees have been quick to talk about judging in terms of neutrality and objectivity, most famously with Chief Justice Roberts’ invocation of the “neutral umpire,” and they have emphasized their reliance on legal texts and sources as if those sources can provide answers in difficult cases. Many of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, however, do not have objectively correct answers that can be deduced from …
The U.S. Supreme Court And Information Technology: From Opacity To Transparency In Three Easy Steps, Jerry Goldman
The U.S. Supreme Court And Information Technology: From Opacity To Transparency In Three Easy Steps, Jerry Goldman
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In this comment, I focus on three areas in which the Supreme Court of the United States could improve information sharing with the public: accessibility, data structure, and information standards. I then propose three simple and low-cost steps to address each of these areas.
Open Secret: Why The Supreme Court Has Nothing To Fear From The Internet, Keith J. Bybee
Open Secret: Why The Supreme Court Has Nothing To Fear From The Internet, Keith J. Bybee
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The Supreme Court has an uneasy relationship with openness: it complies with some calls for transparency, drags its feet in response to others, and sometimes simply refuses to go along. I argue that the Court’s position is understandable given that our digital age of fluid information has often been heralded in terms that are antithetical to the Court’s operations. Even so, I also argue the Court actually has little to fear from greater transparency. The understanding of the Court with the greatest delegitimizing potential is the understanding that the justices render decisions on the basis of political preference rather than …
Beyond The Opinion: Supreme Court Justices And Extrajudicial Speech, Christopher W. Schmidt
Beyond The Opinion: Supreme Court Justices And Extrajudicial Speech, Christopher W. Schmidt
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This Article examines how and why Supreme Court justices venture beyond their written opinions to speak more directly to the American people. Drawing on the history of the post-New Deal Court, I first provide a general framework for categorizing the kinds of contributions sitting justices have sought to make to the public discourse when employing various modes of extrajudicial speech—lectures, interviews, books, articles, and the like. My goal here is twofold: to provide a historically grounded taxonomy of the primary motivations behind extrajudicial speech; and to refute commonplace claims of a lost historical tradition of justices refraining from off-the-bench commentary …
The Supreme Court And Celebrity Culture, Richard A. Posner
The Supreme Court And Celebrity Culture, Richard A. Posner
Chicago-Kent Law Review
No abstract provided.