Category: Courts

Gallup: Supreme Court Overall Approval Slightly Improves After Recent Rulings

A new Gallup poll shows some interesting insights into the approval of the Supreme Court after its major rulings on abortion, guns, and other issues. The overall approval of the Supreme Court at 43 percent actually increased three points. While within the margin of error, it was up from last year’s 40% popularity. The poll comes after the surprising comments of Justice Elena Kagan that the Court may be losing legitimacy by bucking public opinion on issues like abortion. Continue reading “Gallup: Supreme Court Overall Approval Slightly Improves After Recent Rulings”

Schiff: The Committee Could Subpoena Ginni Thomas About Justice Thomas

There was a telling exchange today on CBS’ Face the Nation when host Margaret Brennan asked J6 Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) about issuing a subpoena of Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.  I have previously written how the calls for Justice Thomas to resign or be impeached are wildly out of line with ethical and constitutional standards. What was interesting, however, was how Schiff justified such an unprecedented subpoena: to question her about one of Thomas’ opinions dealing with the authority of Congress to investigate what occurred on that day. Continue reading “Schiff: The Committee Could Subpoena Ginni Thomas About Justice Thomas”

Federal Court Enjoins “Assault Gun” Ban in Boulder County, Colorado

As various states move to pass controversial new gun control laws after the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, one such law was just enjoined by a federal court in Colorado. In Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. SuperiorDistrict Judge Raymond P. Moore granted a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law enacted by the town of Superior, Colorado to ban on the sale or possession of a wide array of guns. Continue reading “Federal Court Enjoins “Assault Gun” Ban in Boulder County, Colorado”

“This is a Moment”: Dobbs and the Realities of the Post-Roe World

Below is my column in USA Today on misleading claims made about the recent abortion ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the existing protections for women on issues ranging from travel to contraceptives. There are good-faith concerns over the reasoning and implications of the decision. There is no need to raise unfounded fears over issues like interstate travel or contraceptives. The President and the Court appear in agreement. The time is now for citizens to vote on the issue of abortion and any limitations placed on that state-based right.

Here is the column:

Continue reading ““This is a Moment”: Dobbs and the Realities of the Post-Roe World”

Georgetown Professor Denounces “Lawless” and “Actively Rogue” Justices, Lawyers, and Law Professors

In a series of tweets this week, Professor Heidi Li Feldman has denounced “lawless” and “actively rogue” Supreme Court justices and professors who disagree with her views on the Constitution. She has called for “genuine” law professors not to fall “into complicity with lawlessness” in teaching such subjects. It is the latest voice of intolerance and orthodoxy at a leading law school.

Hope and a Prayer: Liberals Condemn the Conservative Justices After Dubious Rolling Stone Article

There was an extraordinary story this week out of Rolling Stone magazine, which breathlessly reported a “serious matter” of an allegation that Supreme Court justices prayed with evangelicals, including some associated with groups that filed amicus briefs with the Court. Many liberal sites went immediately into instant vapors at the thought of justices praying with such individuals, including the usual unhinged claims of ethical violations and renewed calls for everything from court packing to impeachments. What is clear is that the critics will require more than this “hope and a prayer” to achieve such ends. Continue reading “Hope and a Prayer: Liberals Condemn the Conservative Justices After Dubious Rolling Stone Article”

Ohio Supreme Court Overturns Sentence Adding Six Years After Defendant Called Judge “Racist as F**k”

There is an interesting case out of Ohio where the state Supreme Court has ruled that Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Eugene Lucci erred when he gave Manson Bryant, 35, an added six years after Bryant called him “racist as f**k.” The outburst followed his initial sentencing for robbery, kidnapping, and weapons charges relating to an armed burglary.

Continue reading “Ohio Supreme Court Overturns Sentence Adding Six Years After Defendant Called Judge “Racist as F**k””

The Kavanaugh Murder Attempt is Shocking But Not Surprising

Below is my column in USA Today on the alleged attempted murder of Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his home outside of Washington, D.C. Less than 24 hours later, protesters were back in front of the Kavanaugh home as well as the home of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In addition, pro-choice activists posted the location of the school of the Barrett children. It is all part of a national rage addiction where neither decency nor responsibility are relevant. Indeed, seven children of a justice are no longer even a concern in venting one’s rage.

Here is the column: Continue reading “The Kavanaugh Murder Attempt is Shocking But Not Surprising”

So You Say You Want a Revolution? President Biden Continues to Talk Revolution if the Court does not Rule as Demanded

“So you say you want a revolution.” When they sang those lines, the Beatles could well have been talking about Democratic leaders today. Revolution seems much in the minds and the rhetoric of politicians who are continuing to threaten swift responses to the Court if it rules against their wishes. The latest armchair revolutionary is President Joe Biden himself who went on Jimmy Kimmel to do the first sit down interview in months. To his credit, Biden was promising only a “mini-Revolution.” Continue reading “So You Say You Want a Revolution? President Biden Continues to Talk Revolution if the Court does not Rule as Demanded”

Biden: “I Don’t Want to Emulate Trump’s Abuse of the Constitution” Despite Losing a Series of Court Fights

There was an interesting moment last night when President Joe Biden appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for his first network interview in 118 days. When Kimmel pushed Biden on the possibility of issuing an executive order on gun control. After all, Kimmel said, “Trump passed those out like Halloween candy.” Biden said that he did not want “to emulate Trump’s abuse of the constitution” and “pass[] those out like Halloween candy.” It was an ironic statement from a president who has racked up an impressive array of losses in the courts which have found that he has repeatedly disregarded constitutional limits. There is an advantage to arranging to be interviewed by a comedian rather than a reporter. There was no push back from Kimmel on a statement that is dramatically at odds with the President’s actual record in the courts. Continue reading “Biden: “I Don’t Want to Emulate Trump’s Abuse of the Constitution” Despite Losing a Series of Court Fights”

Sussmann Juror: “There are Bigger Things … Than a Possible Lie to the FBI”

The acquittal of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann has been the subject of furious debate among politicians and pundits. Some have argued that the case collapsed from lack of evidence while others have alleged that prosecutors faced as biased judge and jury. For his part, Sussmann claimed that the jury found that “I told the truth.”  The truth is more complex and few would assume that the verdict was based on Sussmann’s veracity. However, a statement from a juror immediately after the verdict fueled speculation of the impact of juror bias. According to the Washington Times’ Jeff Mordock, the juror reportedly said “I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.” If that statement had been made during voir dire, it is likely that the juror would have been challenged.

Continue reading “Sussmann Juror: “There are Bigger Things … Than a Possible Lie to the FBI””

Supreme Court Reportedly To Demand Cellphones and Affidavits From Clerks in Leak Investigation

The Supreme Court appears to be ratcheting up its investigation into the leaking of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. According to CNN, the Court is asking clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits. Some of us have been surprised by Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision not to ask for assistance from the FBI, which is the world’s leading law enforcement agency on computer and forensic investigations. Yet, the affidavits may come with the most worrisome change for the leaker. Once signed, the leaker will reaffirm his or her potential criminal liability. Continue reading “Supreme Court Reportedly To Demand Cellphones and Affidavits From Clerks in Leak Investigation”

Tale of Two Trials: How Sussmann is Receiving Every Consideration Denied to Flynn

Judge Christopher Cooper
Judge Emmet Sullivan

Below is my column in The Hill on the Sussmann trial and the striking comparisons with prior prosecutions of Trump officials like Michael Flynn.  The court has limited the evidence available to the prosecution, the scope of questioning, and cleared a jury that includes three Clinton campaign donors. A jury of your peers is not supposed to literal with an array of fellow Clinton supporters. Those negative rulings continued during the trial, including a refusal to dismiss a juror whose daughter is playing on the same team with Sussmann’s daughter.  For John Durham, it may seem that the only person missing from the jury at this point is Chelsea Clinton.

Here is the column: Continue reading “Tale of Two Trials: How Sussmann is Receiving Every Consideration Denied to Flynn”

Clarence Thomas: “When Someone Uses Stare Decisis that Means They’re Out of Arguments”

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas made an interesting comment this weekend about the hold of precedent on the Court. After denouncing the recent leak of the draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade as “an infidelity,” Thomas dismissed the reliance on the principle of stare decisis, or the respect for precedent. That was one of the central arguments in favor of preserving Roe. Thomas, however, surprised many by dismissing the principle as the last line of defense for those without an argument on the merits. Continue reading “Clarence Thomas: “When Someone Uses Stare Decisis that Means They’re Out of Arguments””

Turley Speaks to the Federal Bar Association on the Supreme Court

I have the pleasure this morning of speaking with the Federal Bar Association in Utah. The keynote address is entitled “Dangerous Times for the Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court in the Age of Rage.” Ironically, the topic was selected months ago, but the recent leaking of the draft opinion on abortion and doxing of justices adds a particularly menacing element to the topic.

Continue reading “Turley Speaks to the Federal Bar Association on the Supreme Court”