05 November 2020
What Just Happened?
The American electorate seems to have spoken and it seems to have rejected President Trump. But the there is still the possibility of mischief if Trump succeeds in using the law to thwart the election results. The US constitutional system with its strange and unique system for selecting a president is just rickety enough to make it possible for Trump to litigate his way out of an election loss. Continue reading >>
3 
03 November 2020
Stabilizing the US Judiciary by Threatening to Pack It
Reforming the judicial appointment process in the US will take a constitutional amendment. Without it, reform attempts are likely to fail. For conservatives especially, altering the courts now, after securing a very conservative majority unprecedented in recent history, will seem unappealing. They may (perhaps correctly) conclude that, given their systematic advantages in the Senate and therefore electoral college, endless escalation is a game they may be able to win. This blog post proposes a simple mechanism that aims to force a stabilizing constitutional amendment forward while preserving the option to escalate if they cannot secure cooperation from the Republican party. Continue reading >>
0
01 November 2020
The U.S. Supreme Court and the 2020 Election
As Election Day looms, Americans are heading to the polls, and they are also heading to the courts. In the past two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings in five challenges to election-related practices in different states, and there are surely more to come. The litigation has exposed disagreements on the high court, and on lower courts as well, about where responsibility lies for ensuring elections play out fairly and in accordance with law. Of all of the opinions flying around, the one to get the most attention is perhaps a concurrence from Justice Kavanaugh that invokes Bush v. Gore, in which the Court stopped a recount in Florida and thereby decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. Continue reading >>
0
15 October 2020
Mitch McConnell, The Supreme Court, and The Specter of Politicization
There is no doubt that the Senate Majority Leader is a hypocrite. His bad faith, however, may have a cathartic effect on judicial appointments. Continue reading >>
0
28 September 2020
What did Amy Coney Barrett say?
Very soon Trump’s new pick for the US Supreme Court will be grilled by Democratic senators about her conservative views on abortion and the Affordable Care Act. They are rightly worried that her appointment will put in place a 6-3 majority of rightwing judges on the Court, especially in the wake of Trump’s explicit disappointment at the fact that even his picks have on a couple of occasions voted against positions he favoured. What assurance does he think he has that this pick will be more compliant, a ‘loyal’ ‘Trump judge’? In February, Justice Barrett gave a comment at an event in London. It would be a great pity in the hearings if the senators did not ask what she said. Continue reading >>28 September 2020
Justice Unlimited
The passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her replacement by Judge Amy Coney Barrett has led to a spike in interest in imposing term limits for Supreme Court justices. The proposals now on the table are for doing so by statute because amending the U.S. Constitution is so difficult. They face constitutional and political obstacles, which in combination make their adoption unlikely. Continue reading >>
0
25 September 2020
Action and Reaction
On the packing of courts, when one should do it, and when one should not. Continue reading >>25 September 2020
Aktion und Reaktion
Über Court Packing und wann man es lassen sollte. Und wann nicht. Continue reading >>
0
30 July 2020
The Walk After Bostock
The judgment of the U.S Supreme Court in Bostock v Clayton Country, is a landmark decision in protecting members of the LGBTQ community from employment discrimination on the basis of their gender identity and sexual orientation. Nevertheless, there are hurdles in the implementation of this judgment, particularly in relation with the right to religious liberty and the right to association under the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution. Continue reading >>
0
23 July 2020
„Rasse“ im Parlamentarischen Rat und die Dynamik der Gleichheitsidee seit 1776 (Teil IV)
Es gibt keine „Rassen“ im biologischen Sinn. Rasse bleibt aber wichtig, weil und solange sie als gesellschaftliche Zuschreibung weiter die Wirklichkeit prägt. Den Begriff der Rasse im Grundgesetz zu streichen, ist nicht nur entbehrlich, sondern riskiert, den verfassungsrechtlichen Diskriminierungsschutz zu schwächen, statt ihn zu stärken. Das soll in diesem fünfteiligen Beitrag näher begründet werden, dessen erste drei Teile bereits erschienen sind (vgl. Teile I, II und III) und dessen letzter Teil morgen erscheinen wird (vgl. dann Teil V). Continue reading >>
0