Install
The Courts and the Rule of Law
75 posts, newest first (page 1 of 4).
When the Senate and the President Disagree on Judges, History Shows What FollowsWith Democrats set to take the Senate on January 3, 2027, history shows how divided government shapes judicial nominations and what a President can still do. Roberts Said Judges Call Balls and Strikes. Conservatives Still Argue Over ItRoberts's umpire metaphor captures judicial modesty, but conservatives split over whether modesty means deferring to laws that violate the Constitution. Standing Explained, the Doorway Rule That Keeps Courts Out of PoliticsA federal court can decide a dispute only if the plaintiff shows a real injury the court can fix, and that doorway rule is why judges are not legislators. Robert Jackson Left the Supreme Court to Prosecute the Nazis at NurembergA justice with one year of law school became the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, and his career shows what law is for, which is restraining power. Jury Duty Is the Rule of Law in Your Own Town, So Answer the SummonsThe jury is the one place ordinary citizens hold judicial power directly, and a summons is a privilege the Founders fought to secure. Ten Words the Press Uses About the Supreme Court, Translated for Normal PeopleActivist, extreme, supermajority, rogue and six more words carry arguments inside them. Each is defined, tested against named cases and given a verdict. How the Press Covers Supreme Court Decisions, and What the Stories Leave OutCourt coverage tells you who won, not what the opinion held. Test three famous frames against the actual rulings, then learn to read a syllabus in ten minutes. A Supreme Court of 435 Justices, Where Court-Packing Logic LeadsA labelled thought experiment follows tit-for-tat Court expansion to 435 seats, then checks it against the 1937 Senate report, the 1869 Act and Article III. If Your Lease Were Read Like a Living Constitution, a Satire in Five ClausesA labelled thought experiment about a landlord who treats a lease as an evolving document, and what it shows about fixed meaning, Marbury and Article V. Hard Questions for Originalists, Answered From the Text and the RecordTwelve fair objections to originalism, from whose meaning counts to the Ninth Amendment and Article V, answered from the text and the historical record. Senior Status, the Rule of 80 and Other Questions About How Judges RetireEleven plain answers on senior status, the Rule of 80 in 28 U.S.C. 371, how vacancies open and why a judge's timing shapes who sits on the bench next. How to Read a Federal Court Docket Without a Lawyer or a Big PACER BillA step-by-step guide to finding a federal case, reading its docket sheet and keeping PACER costs near zero, so you can follow a lawsuit yourself. How to Research Your State's Judges Before You Vote in a Judicial ElectionSix steps for researching judicial candidates, from your state's selection system to opinions, bar ratings, campaign money and the ethics rules. How to Follow a Supreme Court Oral Argument, From the Line to the TranscriptSeven plain steps that take you from the argument calendar to the final opinion, so you can judge a Supreme Court case yourself instead of trusting a headline. The Rule of Law Is Older Than the Constitution, From Magna Carta to MarburyNo one above the law is an eight-century English inheritance, and the Founders knew every chapter of it. Here is the road from Runnymede to Marbury. Ramos v. Louisiana and the Jim Crow Roots of Split-Jury ConvictionsIn 2020 the Court held that state criminal juries must be unanimous, ending a rule born in Louisiana's 1898 convention, and the originalist case is strong. Garland in 2016 and Barrett in 2020, and What Advice and Consent Really MeansThe Senate treated Garland and Barrett differently because consent is a power it may give or withhold, and the hypocrisy charge needs answering point by point. The Nuclear Option of 2013 and 2017, and How Filibusters for Judges EndedThe judicial filibuster died in three stages, each side blamed the other, and the real question is what a simple majority for judges means for whoever loses. The Blue Slip Explained, a Senate Courtesy That Shapes Every Federal BenchThe blue slip is a Judiciary Committee custom, not a law, that lets home-state senators stop nominees, and its force depends on who chairs. Seven Myths About the Roberts Court, Tested Against Its Own OpinionsThe story of a Court voting in partisan lockstep fails when you read the opinions, so here are seven popular claims, each checked against the record. Are Conservative Justices the Real Activists? A Rebuttal in Six PointsStriking down a law is not activism. Activism is departing from text and history, and the record shows which judges do that. INS v. Chadha Wiped Out the Legislative Veto in Nearly 200 Laws at OnceOne house of Congress undid a deportation ruling alone, and the Court held in 1983 that the Constitution's lawmaking steps are not optional. Korematsu Was Finally Repudiated in 2018, and Its Lesson Is About DeferenceThe Court upheld the exclusion of Japanese Americans in 1944 by deferring to wartime claims it never tested, and the danger of that habit outlived the decision. In re Debs and the 1894 Pullman Strike That Made the Labor InjunctionThe Court unanimously upheld the injunction against Eugene Debs in 1895, and the case warns every conservative who likes emergency power in the right hands.
Other categories
- The Constitution and the Founders
- First Principles
- Economy, Taxes and Free Markets
- Big Government and the Administrative State
- Border, Immigration and Sovereignty
- Faith, Family and Life
- Education, Parents and Kids
- Culture, Media and Free Speech
- Crime, Policing and Justice
- The Second Amendment
- National Security and Foreign Policy
- Energy, Environment and the Land
- Health Care and Personal Responsibility
- American History and Heroes
- Elections, Civic Action and the Comeback
- Life, Work and Money