Search
Generic filters
POSTS BY David M. Driesen
19 January 2022

The Death of Law and Equity

On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions governing requests for emergency stays of two rules protecting Americans from COVID 19. Both rules relied on very similar statutory language, which clearly authorized protection from threats to health. Both of them presented strikingly bad cases for emergency stays. Yet, the Court granted an emergency stay in one of these cases and denied it in the other. These decisions suggest that the Court applies judicial discretion unguided by law or traditional equitable considerations governing treatment of politically controversial regulatory cases. Continue reading >>
01 July 2020

SCOTUS Aids Trump’s Drive to Autocracy

The United States Supreme Court just took a big step in that authoritarian direction in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in a 5-4 decision. In that case, the Supreme Court created a constitutional rule that the President has the right to fire high executive branch officials for political reasons. Continue reading >>
22 April 2020
,

Corona Constitutional #14: Chaos, und wem es nützt

Heute geht es um Wahlen, genauer um Wahlen in den USA, wo sich im November herausstellen wird, ob Donald Trump eine zweite Amtszeit bekommt. Wahlen in der Coronakrise, das ist auch anderenorts ein außerordentlich haariges Thema, und in Amerika ganz besonders: Im Bundesstaat Wisconsin haben die Demokraten kürzlich ihre Vorwahlen abgehalten. In den Streit darüber, wie diese Wahlen ablaufen sollen, hat sich der Supreme Court eingeschaltet, und zwar auf eine Weise, die bei vielen den ohnehin schon vorhandenen Zweifel daran, dass das oberste Gericht politisch unparteiisch unterwegs ist, noch mal massiv verstärkt hat. Was es mit diesen Zweifeln auf sich hat und was das für die Präsidentschaftswahl bedeuten könnte, darüber spricht Max Steinbeis mit DAVID DRIESEN, Professor an der Syracuse University im Bundesstaat New York. Continue reading >>
0
22 April 2020

The US Supreme Court’s Activism in the Wisconsin Election

United States lawyers may wonder whether President Trump has captured its Supreme Court. One day before a presidential primary and local election in Wisconsin, the Court intervened in an extraordinary way to add a new voting restriction. The decision in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee provides further evidence that the Court has abandoned its high court role in favor of unusual partisan interventions to effectuate results found congenial by its Republican majority. Furthermore, a Court usually sensitive to national security concerns reached its judgment about the Wisconsin election without taking the threat the coronavirus poses to democratic processes seriously. Continue reading >>
Go to Top