Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Animus (1)
- Concur (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Dissent (1)
- Gorsuch (1)
-
- Harlan (1)
- Judicial philosophy (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Language (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Military Law (1)
- Military Service (1)
- Neutrality (1)
- Nomination Hearings (1)
- Plurality (1)
- Precedent (1)
- President Trump (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Transgender ban (1)
- Unit Cohesion (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Fire, Aim, Ready! Militarizing Animus: “Unit Cohesion” And The Transgender Ban, Eric Merriam
Fire, Aim, Ready! Militarizing Animus: “Unit Cohesion” And The Transgender Ban, Eric Merriam
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
President Trump’s currently litigated “transgender ban,” which excludes transgender persons from military service, is premised in part upon a claim that transgender persons’ presence in the military adversely affects “unit cohesion.” This use of identity- based “unit cohesion” as a justification for excluding a group from military service is the latest episode in a long history of the government asserting “unit cohesion” to justify excluding people from military service based on their identities. This Article contends that unit cohesion, when premised on identity, is always an impermissible justification for exclusion from military service because it is unconstitutional animus. Though …
The Language Of Neutrality In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro
The Language Of Neutrality In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
At Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing, then-Judge Gorsuch repeatedly insisted that judging involves no more than examining the legal materials—like statutes and precedents— and applying them to the facts of the case. There is, he emphasized, no room for a Justice’s “personal views,” and he refused even to state his agreement (or disagreement) with such iconic cases as Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. Instead, then Judge Gorsuch reiterated only that they were precedents of the Court and thus entitled to respect. Frustrating as his answers may have been to some senators, however, they differed from answers given …