fbpx
Search Results For:

Search Results for: judicial supremacy – Page 2

For ten years, Public Discourse has drawn on the insights of academics and scholars, political and legal advocates, and men and women of letters to offer the reading public thought-provoking reflections on the timeliest issues and the most timeless dilemmas of our public life.
Same-sex parenting advocates are calling on states’ rights to define the legal relationship between parent and child. What they seek is the power to write the record of a child’s origins and to determine a fundamental aspect of a child’s identity.
Any scholar or commentator who truly worries about the prospect of fascism or nationalist tyranny should favor the restoration of a more robust American federalism, with more powers exercised by the states and fewer powers assigned to the national government.
Justice Antonin Scalia, an originalist, famously held that the Constitution neither permits nor prohibits abortion. On the contrary, unborn babies are “persons” within the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and they are consequently owed due process and equal protection on constitutional grounds.
The framers deliberately gave the president independence, unity, and vast powers. This is only a problem if the office is badly filled.
Whenever a Republican president nominates a judge to the Supreme Court, progressives muse loudly about the importance of stare decisis, the principle governing the law of precedents. All they are worried about is the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In fact, stare decisis does not demand blind adherence to poorly reasoned rulings in the mold of Roe.
There comes a time where gross disregard for human life and for our constitutional order should stir us from docile obedience and impel us to resistance.
Seeing in our contemporary politics the revival of Douglas Democracy in all its anxieties about freedom—and seeing it make such headway in Lincoln’s political party—is disheartening in the extreme. The imperative of learning from Lincoln, as Allen Guelzo’s work brings him to us, has never been stronger.
With the death of Antonin Gregory Scalia the nation has lost one of its greatest jurists and a man who embodied the principle of fidelity to the Constitution.
As a legal opinion, Obergefell is an utter failure, relying as it does on a tenuous and historically ungrounded jurisprudence of “dignity.” The debate over same-sex marriage is not over. A constitutional ruling so shoddily reasoned, so completely and easily dismantled by the dissents, must paper over a cause that cannot ultimately win in an open debate.
“Constitutional law” is not the exclusive domain of the courts, or even of government officials. Faithful interpretation is the duty and responsibility of faithful citizens.
The US Supreme Court has set a precedent upholding the right of states to define marriage as the union of husband and wife. All federal and state judges—including those in Alabama—are bound by that precedent.
The constitutional crisis now unfolding in Alabama is a direct and foreseeable result of Judge Callie S. Granade’s orders.
Adam Freedman’s stark proposal in The Naked Constitution that we strip our founding document of its modern and academic glosses shows us that we need to take structural reforms to our Constitution seriously.
Casey is not a sound exposition of the Constitution, and its authority should be repudiated by all other actors in our constitutional system The second in a two-part series on the deadly significance of Planned Parenthood v. Casey
In its effects, methodology, substantive doctrine, conception of the judicial role and of judicial authority, and conception of what constitutes the rule of law, Casey is terribly significant and terribly wrong. The first in a two-part series on the deadly significance of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The Judiciary doesn’t have the final word on the meaning of the Constitution, and Congress could step in to protect the 14th Amendment rights of the unborn.
President Obama’s decision to refuse to defend DOMA is not an act of executive assertion so much as an expression of deep deference to the courts.
A new book by Noah Feldman explains how Roosevelt’s jurists came to power, and how their constitutional philosophies and disagreements shaped the court.
In his latest book, law professor David A. Strauss attacks the idea of originalism and champions the “living Constitution.” Matt Franck explains why he’s wrong.
The recent actions of New Jersey governor Chris Christie have stirred up a political storm, but they are a reminder of the principles that underlie our politics.
Dobbs may be the most important, magnificent, rightly decided Supreme Court case of all time. It is restorative of constitutional principle. It upholds the values of representative, democratic self-government, and the rule of law, at the same time that it supports the protection of fundamental human rights. It is literally a matter of life and death. It is potentially transformative of American society, for the better. It is a rare act of judicial courage and principle. In every way, Dobbs is a truly great decision.
The doctrine of stare decisis is a dangerous tool, malleable, and peculiarly susceptible to manipulation and abuse. It entices and deceives. If just two justices compromise their principles and betray the Constitution, Dobbs will be lost. If so, Dobbs will displace Casey as the worst Supreme Court decision of all time, and the justices rendering it will merit the most severe condemnation of history. But if the Court overrules Roe and Casey, the Dobbs case would rank among the most magnificent decisions in the Court’s history.
Common good originalism is the best constitutional complement to a politics of a conservative restoration. It is ordered toward a profoundly and distinctly conservative politics that elevates the concerns of nation, community, and family over the one-way push toward ever-greater economic, sexual, and cultural liberationism.