If anyone is “playing politics” with the Supreme Court, it is Sen. Lankford and his Republican colleagues, who are blocking Garland from even getting a hearing and a yes-or-no vote. America needs a fully staffed, fully functioning Supreme Court that can decide cases of profound importance to law enforcement and prosecutors who keep our nation safe, while ensuring that the people's constitutional rights are protected. It is time for Lankford to do his job and call for hearings and a vote.
You are here
Articles & Commentary
When it comes to Supreme Court oral arguments, sometimes the justices’ questions feel more like answers with a question mark at the end. At oral argument in United States v. Texas, the questions asked by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely key votes in the case, seemed like real questions. Fortunately for proponents of the administration’s immigration executive action—which could prevent, on a temporary basis, millions of undocumented immigrants from being deported—the lawyers for the administration had good answers, and the lawyers on the other side didn’t. When it comes time for the justices to cast their votes in the case, they should do what the law requires and reject this challenge to the administration’s immigration initiatives.
Counsel for House Republicans may be the only one speaking on behalf of members of Congress at oral argument on Monday, but as noted earlier, current House Republicans are not the only members of Congress who have made their voices heard in this case. When the Justices decide what to do in the case, they will consider not only what today’s House Republicans have to say, but also what bipartisan current and former members of Congress who support the Administration have said in their legal filings that are already before the Justices. What all of those briefs make clear is simple: while some current Republican members of the House of Representatives may not like the President’s immigration actions, there is no doubt that those actions are lawful.
In short, not only is Texas’s challenge to DAPA an overtly partisan effort to upend a decades-old bipartisan consensus on immigration policy, but its lawyers’ arguments flout the legal framework codifying that consensus. Given recent decisions by Kennedy and Roberts endorsing that framework and opposing partisan misuse of the courts, good reason exists to expect the Supreme Court to reject this lawsuit and relegate the immigration wars to the political process, where they belong.
When the Supreme Court hears oral argument in United States v. Texas, the challenge to President Obama’s executive action on immigration, later this month, one of the big issues the Court will be considering is whether the federal courts should be considering the challenge at all.
After Justice Antonin Scalia died, many speculated that originalism would die as well, without one of its most tireless adherents on the bench. Not if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has anything to say about it. While Justice Ginsburg is rarely classified as an originalist, during her tenure on the Court, she has written a series of brilliant text and history opinions, powerfully making the case that Constitution’s text and history point in a progressive direction.
One hundred and fifty years ago, the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment debated our Constitution’s system of equal representation, affirming that every person counts in our system of representative democracy. Earlier this week, in Evenwel v.
Why are so many Senate Republicans afraid to give Judge Garland a hearing? I can only believe it’s because they know that Americans would like what Judge Garland has to say.
Which of these is a substantial burden? A law that results in the closure of abortion clinics and requires women to travel hundreds of miles to exercise their constitutional rights? Or a regulation requiring employers to fill out a form to claim a religious accommodation? This question is at the heart of two of the biggest cases being heard by the Supreme Court this year: one on Texas’s strict new abortion laws, argued earlier this month, and a challenge to the Affordable Care Act and its contraceptive-related provisions that will be discussed at oral arguments today.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s greatest legacy was his tireless championing of originalism. The method of interpretation he advocated—following the Constitution’s text and history where they lead—offers clear lessons for the current political struggle over the vacancy created by his death, especially now that President Barack Obama has fulfilled his constitutional duty by nominating D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.