Ann Althouse watched Lily Ledbetter and claims "what she should say, to be honest, is: 'Our Court declined to rewrite the statute to be fair to me.'" To be honest, this is utter nonsense. It might be fair to say that Ledbetter wanted to "re-write"...
Supreme Court
One way of sorting out peoples' politics of law is to ask them if they find Harry Blackmun's opinion for the Court in Roe v. Wade or Flood v. Kuhn.
Anthony Kennedy, in his appalling opinion for the Court in Carhart II, asserted:While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude that some women.
Adam Liptak has an interesting article about the exclusionary rule and how the American use of the rule differs from other countries. He begins with a comparison to Canada, which requires that evidence obtained in an illegal search be excluded only if admitting the evidence...
Reading Linda Greenhouse's valedictory essay , Digby emphasizes this passage:In five days on the witness stand, Judge Bork had a chance to explain himself fully, to describe and defend his.
I did a Supreme Court roundup with Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis, which is available in convenient MP3, XML, and ITunes formats.
Way back in 1978, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to undo the damage wrought by the Supreme Court in Geduldig v. Aiello, in which the Court infamously (foot)noted that:The California insurance program does not exclude anyone from benefit eligibility because of gender but merely...
Jeffrey Rosen continues to claim that liberals "dodged a bullet" when Roberts and Alito were appointed. I continue to find this as unpersuasive as it was a year ago. Some.
The Supreme Court term has only just ended and Court watchers and reporters are trying to sum up what we've seen, from gun rights to the rights of those detained.
There's something of a curious disconnect between two passages of Scalia's opinion in Heller:After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an...
Great point by Sandy Levinson: If one had any reason to believe that either Scalia or Stevens was a competent historian, then perhaps it would be worth reading the pages.
Yesterday, many conservatives managed to work themselves into a lather about a plausible interpretation of the Constitution with exceptionally few real-world consequences. I noticed much less outrage about the Court's.