|
|
Convictions: Slate's blog on legal issues
-
It's an election year, so inevitably the possibility of a Supreme Court vacancy is part of the national discussion. If there is a potential nominee who ought to be at the top of the list for both parties, it's Supreme Court advocate, Carter G. Phillips. Read More...
-
Hi, Orin , the Supreme Court's role is modest on some fronts, yes—I agree that deciding that child rapists can't be executed is not of the same order as upholding the death penalty in the first place. Or that outlawing one method of late-term abortion Read More...
-
In holding that the reach of the Constitution is to be measured functionally, not formally, a majority in Boumediene resolves a question previously muddled by plurality opinions. Whether U.S. agents must adhere to the U.S. Constitution when acting outside Read More...
-
David , you're right: Kennedy's opinion in Boumediene calls Congress out. Hey, you want to suspend habeas, go ahead, but we're not going to let you back into it by mumbling about jurisdiction-stripping. Which makes it striking that in the opening of his Read More...
-
This just in via SCOTUSblog —the Supreme Court decided today in a 5-4 opinion that detainees at Guantanamo Bay could bring petitions for habeas corpus in federal district court. As Jeff Toobin just said on CNN, this marks the third time (more if you count Read More...
-
Like many corporate law and business law decisions, yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders was virtually ignored by the media and blogosphere. Neither the New York Times , Washington Post , nor even the Read More...
-
I know I am not an American citizen in the eyes of the powers that be. With these words the story of a historic New Orleans neighborhood comes full circle. It was in this neighborhood that even before the Civil War hommes de couleur libré —free people Read More...
-
Thanks to D.C.-based "Convictions" reader Mark I. Levy for sending this late entry to last month's Recusal Quiz : In answer to our question on seminal cases in which one more recusal would have compelled the Supreme Court to affirm without opinion—as Read More...
-
I had the pleasure of spending a few hours late last week at the tail end of what looked to have been a terrific seminar series on current challenges in the law of war. The lectures were aimed at an audience of mostly Capitol Hill staffers and delivered Read More...
-
Can't let the month of May end without answering the Recusal Quiz question. As readers will recall, the quiz was occasioned by Linda Greenhouse's report that the Supreme Court had affirmed a lower court decision. The reason? Four justices recused themselves Read More...
-
The Supreme Court today held 7-2 that a black former employee of Cracker Barrel can go ahead and sue the company for retaliation, based on his allegations that it fired him for complaining about racial discrimination. A few months ago, I thought that Read More...
-
The Justices of the Supreme Court has been using the facial as applied distinction to reach consensus among themselves but it does nothing to yield similar agreement in the lower courts. Indeed, the Fourth Circuit seems to have found new ways to circumvent even the minimal consensus achieved by the justices. Read More...
-
I'm not sure why the inconsistency noted by Diane between the Findlaw and Rasmussen poll favors the Findlaw results. It could be that Rasmussen is right and Findlaw is wrong. A possible (partial) explanation for the inconsistency: Findlaw polls "American Read More...
-
I have a slightly different hypothesis for Eric and the new Rasmussen poll . Eric is right to point to the odd disjunction between favorable institutional ratings and the lame reviews for individual justices. But the poll also suggests something fairly Read More...
-
The Rasmussen poll's (un)favorability ratings for individual Supreme Court justices surely intrigue. But how can they be squared with repeated polls indicating Americans don't even know the names of the nine folks on the court? Consider FindLaw's December Read More...
-
Here are some odd poll results from Rasmussen Reports. Americans think that the Supreme Court does a good job but that the Supreme Court justices do a bad job. For the court as a whole, 41 percent of voters rated the Court good or excellent; 19 percent Read More...
-
The prospects for a Justice Clinton, Hillary or Bill, are not great, but should the Democrats sweep up to 12 new seats, the speculation is not other-worldly, except perhaps to the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Read More...
-
Adam , I meant neither to endorse "a longtime practitioner" nor to exclude law professors or sitting judges from consideration for court vacancies. Persons holding any of these positions may qualify as "lawyer's lawyers" or, indeed, "judge's judges." Read More...
-
I'll get to Phil's McCain-Obama-and-the-courts question in a sec. But I first have to say that while I'm generally a big fan of David Savage's at the L.A. Times , there are parts of this latest piece that sound like they could've been written by Rush Read More...
-
In recognition of the unusual news that a lower court decision was "automatically affirmed" because too many justices had "[f]inancial and personal conflicts of interest ," a quiz: In what case decided 60 years ago this month did three justices recuse Read More...
| | S | M | T | W | T | F | S | | 29 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 1 | 2 | | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum What did you think of this article?
|
|
|