On Monday, Senate Republicans successfully blocked Judge Robert Wilkins’ nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, bringing to a head the fight between the Obama administration and conservatives over the future of the second most powerful court in the country.
Even with a packed docket, the Roberts Court could find room to take up important cases on pregnant workers’ rights as well as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.
Unlike many of President Obama’s other federal court nominees, Todd Hughes’ nomination has proceeded smoothly.
This week in legal news: the bad policy and law behind admitting privileges restrictions, and Republicans’ obstructionism on judicial nominees becomes transparently misogynistic.
Republican senators have made it clear they’ll do whatever it takes to keep Georgetown law professor Nina Pillard off the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
So far, conservatives have defined the terms of the debate over the next Supreme Court nominee, while liberals have been left to defend against charges of coded language and hidden agendas.
An important consideration related to who ultimately fills Souter’s seat centers on what issues the Supreme Court would face in the near future.
Pro-reproductive justice philosophy is grounded in empathy — the idea that we cannot judge another woman’s choice unless we’ve walked a mile in her shoes.
A truly progressive legal culture – lines of legal interpretation which affirm free speech, privacy, civil liberties and protections of minority groups and views – requires building from the ground up, not just from the Supreme Court on down.
The public may never know whether Obama’s Supreme Court nominee is committed to privacy rights because of the conspiracy of silence that governs judicial nominations.