There has been much talk about the decision of Judge Juan Merchan not to recuse himself from the Trump trial in Manhattan. I do believe that Merchan should have recused himself but I admit that this can be a difficult question. I wanted to address this question since it continues to be raised by the former president and others in the controversial trial. Continue reading “The Thomas Analogy: Why Recusal Was More Compelling for Merchan in Manhattan”
Category: Supreme Court
When Robert Mueller appointed Andrew Weissmann as one of his top advisers, many of us warned that it was a poor choice. Weissmann seemed intent to prove those objections correct in increasingly unhinged and partisan statements. This week, he ratcheted up the rhetoric even further in claiming that the nation is “one vote away” from the end of democracy if the Supreme Court does not embrace the sweeping claims of Special Counsel Jack Smith. Continue reading “Weissmann: “One Vote Away from … the End of Democracy””
Below is my column in the New York Post on yesterday’s oral arguments on presidential immunity. As expected, with the exception of the three liberal justices, the Court appears to be struggling to find a more nuanced approach that would avoid the extreme positions of both parties. Rather than take a header off either cliff, the justices seem interested in a controlled descent into the depths of Article II.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Constitutional Abyss: Justices Signal a Desire to Avoid Both Cliffs on Presidential Immunity”
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up Fischer v. United States, a case that could fundamentally change many cases of January 6th defendants, including the prosecution of former president Donald Trump. The case involves the interpretation of a federal statute prohibiting obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations. Continue reading “Supreme Court Takes Up Obstruction Case Affecting J6 Defendants”
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted review of the presidential immunity question, but set an expedited schedule for the review of the question with oral argument scheduled for April. Former president Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that “Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity.” As I mentioned last night in the coverage, legal scholars are hardly doing a conga line in celebration. Indeed, this morning had the usual voices attacking the Court as “craven” and partisan for granting review in the case. Despite the Court (including three Trump appointees) repeatedly ruling against Trump and conservative causes in past cases, the same voices declared that the Court was a cabal of politically compromised lickspittles.
President Joe Biden held a press event to brag about a major accomplishment this week. That itself is hardly surprising in an election year, but the boast itself was rather curious. In announcing the writing off of another $1.2 billion owed to the government in student loans, Biden gloated that the Supreme Court could not stop him from acting unilaterally to cancel the debt. For an Administration running on saving democracy from his political opponent, the chest-thumping brag that no one can stop him was a moment of impressive political dissonance. Continue reading ““That Didn’t Stop Me”: President Biden Brags that the Supreme Court Cannot Stop Him from Canceling Student Debt”
It has been 65 years since Hawaii became a state, but the Hawaiian Supreme Court appears to be having second thoughts. In an extraordinary ruling, the unanimous Supreme Court rejected the holdings of the United States Supreme Court on the Second Amendment as inapplicable to the 50th state. Hawaii apparently is controlled not by the precedent of the Supreme Court but the “spirit of Aloha.” While Queen Liliʻuokalani would be pleased, the justices on that “other” Supreme Court may view such claims as more secessional than spiritual.
This morning I will be joining the live coverage of the Supreme Court of the arguments over the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment. When I am not on air, I will be doing my usual running analysis on Twitter/X. I have been a vocal critic of the theory under Section 3 as textually and historically flawed. It is also, in my view, a dangerously anti-democratic theory that would introduce an instability in our system, which has been the most stable and successful constitutional system in the world. Continue reading “Supreme Court Hears Trump v. Anderson: What To Expect”
Below is my column in The Hill on the worsening situation at the Southern border and how the Supreme Court laid the seeds for this crisis over a decade ago. The courts have left few options for either the states or Congress in compelling the enforcement of federal law.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Open Borders and Closed Courts: How the Supreme Court Laid the Seeds for the Immigration Crisis”
Below is my column in Fox.com on the recent suggestion that Justice Sonia Sotomayor should step aside for a younger justice in the interest of extending a liberal voting block on the Supreme Court. It is part of a growing number of calls for changing the Court that range from buying out justices to sweating them out.
Here is the column:
In Florida, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle has ruled that the federal law prohibiting people from possessing firearms inside post offices is unconstitutional. The ruling is based on the 2022 Supreme Court ruling New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen recognized a person’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Continue reading “Packing Services: Federal Judge Rules Ban on Guns in Post Offices is Unconstitutional”
As Democrats ramp up their efforts for the 2024 election, some are dangling an old enticement from 2020: if we win, we can pack the Court. In the last election, President Joe Biden refused to say if he favored packing the Court. Now the chatter has again started in the same quarters that a Democrat retaking the White House would allow the packing of the Court with an immediate liberal majority to force through sweeping court mandates. Continue reading “Unpacking by Packing the Court? The Left has a New Orwellian Mantra”
The majority of Americans oppose the decisions in Colorado and Maine to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. Other polls put the balance slightly in favor, but all polls show a deeply divided country on this effort. The Maine decision will now be reviewed by the Maine state courts, but the Colorado decision is scheduled for oral argument in a matter of weeks. A reversal of the Colorado decision is now supported by 27 states, which filed with the Supreme Court to oppose the underlying theory under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is relatively rare to see states opposing the expansion of their own authority vis-a-vis Congress. The brief reinforces the view of states like Colorado as outliers in the country in embracing this anti-democratic theory.