We've been to this circus before. This one's from the summer of '89, along with a terrific Tony Auth cartoon. ...
President-elect Donald Trump has made no utterance since his election about who he will tap to fill the Antonin Scalia vacancy on the High Court. However, this hasn't stopped others from endlessly speculating about just who that might be.
American values, institutions, and people are in peril. Taking care of one another is an immediate concern. As we move forward, resisting Trump and the threat he poses is the decent and patriotic thing to do.
Donald Trump, however, made his intentions quite clear at the last debate, and many times before: He will appoint justices to the high court "very much in the mold of Justice Scalia."
How should the next Supreme Court Justice adjudicate? Last month, I participated in a thought-provoking debate on Cato Unbound concerning that questio...
Racial bias in the criminal justice system, the growing political power of minority voters, and the accountability of predatory banks are at the center of this term's most interesting cases.
Scalia made a mighty effort to shape and remake law and public policy in his narrow, retrograde image of what law and public policy in America should be. The Scalia dividend is that with his absence from the court that thankfully will change.
In crucial areas of the law, much may depend on who takes Antonin Scalia's place. Including whether America, like Yemen or North Korea, continues to execute the innocent.
There should be no more nonsense like the blind spots that accompanied Powell, or the ham-fisted inanity offered by John Roberts at his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing, in which he compared justices to baseball umpires calling balls and strikes.
Trump didn't publicly drop Scalia's name at the convention solely because he considered him the judge with the right stuff. It was the one person that he knew, above all others, was considered a demigod among party ultra-conservatives, pro-lifers and evangelicals.
All things considered, this was a good term for liberals and progressives. But anyone thinking that more smooth sailing lies ahead should be advised that the court's current 4-4 split, which presently tilts leftward on many topics, won't last long.
From unions' rights to tribal jurisdiction, immigration and birth control, Scalia's absence has already impacted a number of important decisions, foreshadowing how the country might be shaped by substantial changes to the court's makeup over the next president's term.
Those who have studied the role of the Supreme Court in American life understand above all this November's election is about who will nominate and confirm the next Justices.
You probably think I'm nuts. Just after the Senate has killed two bills that would have modestly restricted gun rights, am I seriously proposing that we tamper with the wording of the Second Amendment?
It would be one thing if Scalia had gotten the historical analysis of the Second Amendment correct in Heller. But the tragic fact is that he got it so thoroughly wrong.
According to many observers, the Supreme Court is struggling to do its job. It is "diminished," "hobbled," perhaps even "crippled."