All articles tagged with #conservative justices
The article criticizes the current Supreme Court's departure from traditional judicial principles like respect for precedent, transparency, humility, and equal treatment, highlighting how recent decisions and practices undermine the court's legitimacy and suggest it is functioning more as a political body than an impartial judiciary.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the conservative Supreme Court justices for their partisan approach and decision-making, particularly in a case involving the cancellation of NIH grants, accusing them of creating a confusing and biased legal process that undermines judicial review and hampers scientific and health research.
The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed Idaho to enforce a ban on gender-affirming treatment for minors, signaling a willingness to engage in the culture wars. The conservative majority voted to lift the block on the law, specifying that the ban would apply to everyone except the plaintiffs challenging it. The law, passed by Idaho's Republican-controlled Legislature, makes it a felony for doctors to provide transgender medical care for minors, including hormone treatment.
The US Supreme Court is set to hear a case on April 16 that challenges the Justice Department's use of an Enron-era statute to charge some Capitol riot defendants, including former President Donald Trump, with a 20-year maximum sentence for evidence destruction. The case pits concerns over prosecutorial overreach against the conservative justices' fidelity to statutory language, with some arguing that the statute doesn't fit the Capitol riot context and others contending that the defendants' conduct falls within the intentionally broad language of the statute. The outcome could have implications for the balance of prosecutorial power and the interpretation of criminal statutes.
During oral arguments, Supreme Court justices Alito and Thomas repeatedly referenced the 1873 Comstock Act in relation to the abortion drug mifepristone, raising concerns about potential threats to abortion access. Legal experts anticipate the court will rule to preserve the FDA's authority, but fear the justices may write a separate opinion focused on the Comstock Act, providing legal cover for a future administration to invoke it. Antiabortion activists have sought to use the law to block mailing of abortion-related drugs, while the Biden administration staunchly opposes such efforts.
Critics argue that the Supreme Court's recent ruling on Trump's ballot eligibility shows a selective application of the conservative legal methodology of originalism, with little originalist analysis in the decision. Some conservative legal scholars and former judges have criticized the ruling as judicial activism and a departure from originalist principles. The court's 6-3 conservative majority has faced scrutiny for allegedly ignoring originalist arguments in cases such as abortion rights and affirmative action, leading to liberal outcomes. The debate over the court's adherence to originalism continues to spark controversy and criticism from legal scholars on both sides of the political spectrum.
Conservative Supreme Court justices are considering weakening the power of federal regulators by potentially overturning the 1984 Chevron decision, which allows agencies to interpret unclear laws. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh led the attack on Chevron, while liberal justices expressed concerns about judges becoming "uber-legislators" if Chevron is eliminated. The outcome could have significant implications for regulations on public health, workplace safety, and environmental protection, with billions of dollars at stake.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled a willingness to roll back the power of federal agencies by attacking the Chevron deference, a doctrine that gives agencies wide latitude to create policies and regulations based on ambiguous laws. Justices expressed concerns about the doctrine favoring the government over individuals and its impact on different classes of people, while liberals warned that overturning Chevron would force courts to make policy decisions better left to agency experts. The cases heard centered on whether the National Marine Fisheries Service had the authority to mandate fishing vessels to pay for onboard observers, with the justices focusing on the question of overturning Chevron.
Conservative justices on the Supreme Court are considering weakening the power of federal agencies by potentially eliminating the Chevron doctrine, which requires judges to defer to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. This could give courts more authority to strike down regulations across various policy areas, reducing the executive branch's power and making it harder for presidents to defend their regulatory agendas. The court's ruling could have significant implications for healthcare, the environment, immigration, and more.
The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed a vote on authorizing subpoenas for billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow and conservative legal activist Leonard Leo, who have ties to conservative Supreme Court justices. The subpoenas are part of an ethics inquiry prompted by reports of undisclosed gifts to conservative justices. The delay is attributed to scheduling issues and Republican amendments proposing expanded subpoenas. Democrats argue that the subpoenas are necessary to address ethical concerns, while Republicans criticize the move as setting a dangerous precedent. The committee previously dropped its plan to subpoena another conservative donor after receiving withheld information. The committee approved a bill in July to establish a binding ethics code for justices, but it faces Republican opposition.
The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee backed down on their plan to subpoena two major conservative players close to Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in their probe into ongoing ethics controversies at the Supreme Court. The committee Republicans threatened to offer numerous amendments, leading to a delay in the vote. The subpoenas were intended to investigate whether undisclosed gifts were used to gain access to the justices. The committee may attempt to vote on the subpoenas next week.
Senate Democrats are advancing legislation that would impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court for the first time in history, aiming to keep conservative justices' ties to GOP donors and their rightward bent in the public spotlight. While the bill is unlikely to become law, Democrats see it as a way to remind voters about the court's polarizing opinions and ethical entanglements. The move is part of a long-term strategy to shape the political fight over the high court in their favor, despite Republican opposition and the slim Democratic majority in Congress.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority has flexed its muscles in the latest term, making decisions that highlight the sharp political and ideological divides on the bench. The conservative justices blocked Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, barred US universities from considering race in admissions, and allowed creative professionals to refuse work promoting gay marriage. However, there have been some surprises, with conservative justices siding with liberals on certain issues. The court's upcoming term will feature cases that could further limit the power of the federal government, potentially setting a precedent that makes it harder for presidents to achieve policy goals.
Constitutional lawyer Michael Waldman argues that the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court, including three appointees of President Trump, have defied longstanding precedents and rendered far-reaching decisions on gun control, reproductive rights, environmental regulations, and voting rights. Waldman says that the principle of "originalism" is fundamentally flawed and that state courts and state constitutions can be a strong bulwark for protection of rights, for advancement of equality, for promoting democracy.
Conservative justices on the US Supreme Court have been using the "shadow docket" to shift laws governing religious freedom sharply to the right through a series of unsigned and unexplained emergency orders, according to a new book by Stephen Vladeck. The orders do not reveal who voted for them or why, often providing one-line explanations of the legal thinking behind them. Vladeck warns that the trend is merging with the current ethics scandals surrounding the conservative justice Clarence Thomas to damage the legitimacy of the court and threaten a full-blown constitutional crisis.