Sean Kammer: Anti-Intellectualism, the Supreme Court, and the Legitimacy of Law
Michael Ramsey
Sean Kammer (University of South Dakota Law School) has posted 'Whether or Not Special Expertise Is Needed': Anti-Intellectualism, the Supreme Court, and the Legitimacy of Law (South Dakota Law Review, forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Recently, there has deservedly been much consternation regarding what some see as the increased politicization of the judiciary […]
Kent Barnett: Due Process for Article III—Rethinking Murray’s Lessee
Michael Ramsey
Kent H. Barnett (University of Georgia School of Law) has posted Due Process for Article III—Rethinking Murray's Lessee (Geo. Mason L. Rev. __ (2019)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: The Founders sought to protect federal judges’ impartiality primarily because those judges would review the political branches’ actions. To that end, Article III judges retain their […]
George Will on Hate Crimes and Federal Powers
Michael Ramsey
In the Washington Post, George Will: The federal hate crime law is both unconstitutional and unwise. After showing off his swastika tattoo, Randy Metcalf became involved in a barroom brawl. One of his opponents was an African American, whom he and his friends knocked unconscious. Metcalf repeatedly kicked him in the head and, according to a witness, […]
Ingrid Wuerth: The Future of the Federal Common Law of Foreign Relations
Michael Ramsey
Ingrid B. Wuerth (Vanderbilt University – Law School) has posted The Future of the Federal Common Law of Foreign Relations (106 The Georgetown Law Journal 1825 (2018)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: The federal common law of foreign relations has been in decline for decades. The field was built in part on the claim that […]
Lawrence Goldstone on Judicial Review (with my Objections) [Update: and a Response]
Michael Ramsey
In The New Republic, Lawrence Goldstone: How to Fix the Supreme Court: Weaken It. It begins: The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice never should matter as much as Brett Kavanaugh’s did, and that’s because the Supreme Court itself shouldn’t matter as much as it does today. That’s the conclusion of many legal observers—me included—after witnessing […]
Prohibiting Court Packing by Constitutional Amendment
Mike Rappaport
Jim Lindgren has proposed a constitutional amendment that would constitutionalize the nine-member Supreme Court. The key language is: The size of the Supreme Court of the United States shall be nine members, consisting of one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, though from time to time one or more of these nine offices may be […]
Aziz Huq on Removing Justice Kavanaugh
Michael Ramsey
From the Washington Post last week, Aziz Huq (Chicago): Two ways Democrats can remove Kavanaugh — without impeaching him. (At first I thought this was a parody that Professor Huq cleverly suckered the Post into publishing, but the University of Chicago website is promoting it like a serious article). Here is the first way: [A] Democratic […]
An Important Difference Between Historians and Originalist Law Professors
Mike Rappaport
Recently, I was having a discussion with a law professor who looks at matters from a historical perspective. While such law professors are not professional historians, many of them have adopted the historian's perspective. During our discussion, one aspect of the dispute between historians and originalist law professors became crystal clear. When historians are making […]
Jonathan Gienapp on the Un-Fixed Constitution
Michael Ramsey
In the Boston Globe, Jonathan Gienapp (Stanford history): Originalism is the rage, but Constitution’s authors had something else in mind. From the introduction: Originalism continues to surge in popularity, winning converts across the federal judiciary, law school faculties, and the political ranks, while the Supreme Court often decides cases based ostensibly on what the Constitution meant […]
James Phillips & John Yoo on Originalism and Common Law Constitutionalism
Michael Ramsey
At NRO, John Yoo and James C. Phillips: A Clash of Judicial Visions. From the core of the discussion: These two visions of the courts have given birth to two distinct approaches to judging. The first view mistakenly appeals to the way state judges decide the cases that most Americans encounter: criminal trials, contract and property […]