filibuster

  • December 10, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    In The New York Times, Matt Apuzzo, Haeyoun Park, and Larry Buchanan explore the findings of the Senate’s CIA torture report.

    Also in The New York Times, William Yardley writes about the recent death of Dollree Mapp, a woman whose refusal to allow police to search her home “led to a landmark United States Supreme Court ruling on the limits of police power.”

    Dave Jamieson of the Huffington Post reports on Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk that suggests Amazon workers should unionize rather than seek help from the courts.

    Jim Newell write at Salon that GOP Senators are now rethinking their stand on restoring the filibuster.

  • November 4, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Justice Watch, the blog for Alliance for Justice, explains why a Republican-controlled Senate does not necessarily doom the judicial confirmation process for Obama-nominated judges.

    Jeffrey Rosen has a less optimistic view, and argues in The New Republic that the death of a justice during a Republican Congress would lead to disaster.

    Russel Berman reports in The Atlantic that a challenge to the filibuster survived a recent Supreme Court challenge.

    At SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe discusses Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Jerusalem passport case, and what yesterday’s oral argument signals about how the Supreme Court will decide the case.

    Irin Carmon of MSNBC reports on the numerous ballot measures that challenge reproductive rights throughout the country.

  • October 23, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Jason Steed, Associate at Bell Nunnally, and president of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Lawyer Chapter

    In part 1, I tried to briefly explain why the argument for term limits should be focused on the nonpartisan value of increased apolitical predictability in the Court’s appointment process. Justices shouldn’t be tempted to base their retirement decisions on partisan politics, and we shouldn’t be left to speculate wildly about when the next justice might retire—or about how many appointments the next president might get.

    But once we agree term limits are a good idea (and 70% of the public agrees on this), we must shift to the practical concerns that surround the actual implementation of term limits. Right off the bat, at least four questions (or problems) arise:

    1.  How long should the term limits be?

    2.  What about the filibuster and other attempts to deprive a president of an appointment?

    3.  What about the role of Chief Justice—how does that work in a fixed-term system?

    4.  How do we transition? That is, how do we impose fixed terms on nine sitting justices who everyone expected to have lifetime appointments?

    Now, I’m no scholar on these matters, and I assume others have addressed them already, in one way or another. But here are my thoughts:

  • December 6, 2013
    BookTalk
    The Federalist Society
    How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals
    By: 
    Michael Avery and Danielle McLaughlin

    by Michael Avery and Danielle McLaughlin. Mr. Avery is Professor of Law and Director of Litigation at Suffolk University Law School. Ms. McLaughlin is an associate at Nixon Peabody.

    In mid-November the Democrats finally exercised the so-called “nuclear option,” barring filibusters for all votes on judicial appointments in the Senate, other than for Supreme Court Justices. The change in the Senate Rules followed the Republican filibuster of three of President Obama’s nominees for the very conservative D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the radical increase in opposition to presidential judicial choices by Republicans since 2009. According to Harry Reid, almost half of the filibusters of presidential judicial nominations in our Nation’s history have been used against President Obama’s selections. The rules change will allow a simple majority of senators present and voting to approve presidential nominees to the federal bench and eliminate the 60-vote supermajority required to overcome a filibuster.

    Right-wing ideologues have been successful since the 1980 election of President Reagan in securing judicial appointments for conservatives during Republican presidencies. Ed Meese, the Reagan Attorney General and now elder statesman of the conservative legal movement, said that “no President exercises any power more far reaching, more likely to influence his legacy, than the selection of federal judges.” The Federalist Society, whose founders were mentored by Meese in the Reagan White House and Department of Justice, has always believed that the easiest way to change the law is to change the judges. We document their success in doing so at all levels of the federal judiciary in our book, The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals. Federalist Society members are just as active with respect to judicial selection when a Democrat is president as they are when a Republican is in the White House. For example, in 2010, the Judicial Confirmation Network, formed to promote George W. Bush’s judicial nominations, simply changed its name to the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), once President Obama began nominating judges. The leadership of the group remained in the hands of key Federalist Society members and it lobbied actively against the president’s appointments.

  • November 11, 2013

    by Richard W. Painter, the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law, University of Minnesota Law School. Mr. Painter served as the Associate Counsel to the President in the White House Counsel’s Office as the chief ethics lawyer (2005-2007). Painter is co-author of the ACS Issue Brief, “Extraordinary Circumstances: The Legacy of the Gang of 14 and a Proposal for Judicial Nominations.”

    Cornelia Pillard, who has been nominated by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has been favorably reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She still, however, awaits a vote by the full Senate on her nomination. The vote should be held promptly, and should be in the affirmative.

    I have no personal or professional connection with Pillard (pictured), but I believe it is important for the Senate to confirm qualified nominees for the federal judiciary, and she is one of them.
     
    I have not seen a record of appellate advocacy as impressive as Pillard’s since I worked in the White House Counsel’s Office on the 2006 nomination of John Roberts to become Chief Justice of the United States.

    Pillard has worked with a broad range of distinguished appellate lawyers on a wide range of cases, and she knows how courts properly decide cases. Lawyers like Pillard who have in depth experience in appellate advocacy understand the limited role of judges in interpreting and applying the law and know that responsible judges will not assume the role of elected legislators, who make laws. We would significantly diminish the risk of having an activist judiciary if all or most federal appellate judges were to have appellate advocacy experience similar to Pillard’s before they go on the bench. The Senate should not pass up an opportunity to confirm a nominee who has such experience and who will likely impart some of her wisdom and constraint to colleagues on the court.