Latest news with #constitutionalLaw
New York Times
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Times
The Supreme Court Is Divided in More Ways Than You'd Think
When Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Supreme Court during President Trump's first term, originalism found itself in an unfamiliar and challenging position. All three of the court's new members were avowed originalists, holding that judges ought to interpret the Constitution according to the meaning it had when it was ratified. As a result, a majority of the justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, now subscribed to this theory. Originalism, long seen as an insurgent force at the Supreme Court, had become its reigning philosophy. For the originalists on the court, the shift from backbenchers to decision makers brought new responsibilities and presented new difficulties. Problems that had mostly been hypothetical debates within the court's originalist minority became central questions of constitutional law. How readily should an originalist court overturn a precedent at odds with the original meaning of the Constitution? What should an originalist judge do when the original meaning of the Constitution does not fully address a modern dispute? The originalist justices have shown themselves to be divided on these and other questions of constitutional theory. To many critics of the Supreme Court, its majority appears monolithic, but that perception is mistaken. Indeed, the defining challenge for the court's conservatives today is how to maintain a majority to move the law in an originalist direction despite the many theoretical disagreements among them. For originalists such as myself, these fractious dynamics pose the greatest threat to the urgent effort to restore the rule of law that was so badly damaged by the Supreme Court in the 1960s and '70s under Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger. But for all observers of the court, regardless of judicial or political inclination, these disputes are key to understanding its decisions. Originalism in its modern form emerged in the 1970s. The Supreme Court had issued an array of controversial decisions including Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 (requiring an arrestee to be informed of certain rights before being interrogated) and Roe v. Wade in 1973 (holding that there is a right to abortion). To some in the legal academy — and to many in the public — nothing in the text or history of the Constitution seemed to justify these rulings. The court's decisions struck them as arbitrary at best. At worst, in the words of Justice Byron White, who served on both the Warren and Burger courts, they appeared to be an 'exercise of raw judicial power.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Daily Mail
5 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Awkward moment MSNBC anchor has to cover news segment about his WIFE
MSNBC host Chris Hayes awkwardly reported on his wife's congressional testimony, hailing her as 'amazing' as he detailed her battle with the GOP over the unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions against the Trump Administration. Constitutional law professor Kate Shaw appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday as a minority party witness to testify about the 'lawlessness' of Donald Trump. Hayes, who has been married to Shaw since 2007, covered his wife's tense face of with Senator Josh Hawley on his All In With Chris Hayes program and did not shy away from showing where his loyalties lie. 'There's a fun moment in the United States Senate yesterday I'd love to share with you, mostly because it features the amazing constitutional law professor/podcast host/ New York Times contributor Kate Shaw, who's also my wife,' Hayes said. He added: 'And it also features Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who is amazing in his own way, I guess.' Hayes went on to accuse the senator of 'going to ridiculous lengths to defend the lawlessness of boss Trump', whom he claims Hawley believes is a 'victim' of a 'vast network' biased federal judges. He took aim a Hawley's chart detailing the nationwide injunctions that were issued during the Trump, Biden, Obama and Bush administrations, alluding that the senator's 'big gotcha chart' was joke worthy. The MSNBC host went on to cite his wife's 'more simple explanation', which he suggested disproves Hawley's allegation of bias against trump. 'Hawley had printed out a big gotcha chart, which he seemed to think proved that Donald Trump is a victim of a vast network of biased judges from across the ideological spectrum,' Hayes told the program on Wednesday night. 'Professor Shaw suggested there might be a more simple explanation.' The segment cut to footage from Shaw's testimony on Tuesday which saw Hawley probing the law professor about the significantly higher number of injunctions issued against the president. 'What's the principle of when an injunction binding non-parties, which was never done in this country before the 1960s?' Hawley asked. 'And let's see the chart, the Trump chart, which was done, really, only once Trump came into office for the first time. Now, you don't think this is a little bit anomalous?' Shaw quickly hit back: 'A very plausible explanation, Senator, you have to consider is that he is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents, right?' Hawley went on the allege that nationwide injunctions were 'never used before the 1960s' and now are being used by 'Democrat judges' to take aim at the GOP. Shaw disputed his allegation, saying: 'It's Republican appointees as well, Senator. And the 1960s is where some scholars begin, sort of locate the beginning of this -' Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) (C) greets University of Pennsylvania law Professor Kate Shaw (L) and Catholic University law Professor Joel Alicea before a subcommittee hearing on June 3, 2025 about the unprecedented number of nationwide judicial injunctions against the Trump Administration But the lawmaker cut her off, asking her to 'identify' some of the scholars who are experts in nationwide injunctions. The law professor started to answer his question, but Hawley cut her off again, noting how the 'republic endured for 150 years before there was a nationwide injunction'. Shaw, however, claimed the 'federal government was doing a lot less' before and that 'many things that have changed' in the last five to ten decades. Hawley continued to push: 'So, so long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions? If it's a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted, and called for. 'How can our system of law survive on those principles, Professor?' 'I think a system in which there are no meaningful constraints on the president is a very dangerous system,' Shaw answered before the clip came to an end. Hayes, offering his reaction to the exchange, just quoted his wife's testimony, telling the audience: 'A very plausible explanation you have to consider is that he is engaged in much more lawless activities than other presidents.' Hayes and Shaw met in the late 1990s during their freshman year at Brown University. They tied the knot in 2007 and now share three children together. Shaw has made several appearances on Hayes' politics podcast Why Is This Happening?. She was a guest on the podcast twice in 2018 to discuss the 'Rule of Law in the Era of Trump' and appeared on the show again in 2019 to discuss the 'meaning of impeachment'. The pair, both of whom have large media presences, also occasionally collaborate on crossover podcast episodes. The couple are also known share sweet glimpses of their romance and family life on social media.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Harvard's Laurence Tribe Draws Brutal Parallel Between Trump And A Ruthless Royal Tyrant
Harvard constitutional law professor emeritus Laurence Tribe delivered a damning assessment of Donald Trump's recent attacks on his university, likening the president's actions to those of a historical, brutal monarch. In an interview with CNN's Kate Bolduan, Tribe was asked how far he believes the Trump administration has gone 'beyond the bounds of the law' with his bids to ban international students from the university, freeze its grants and redirect its federal funds. 'I compare it to King Henry VIII, King Edward II,' Tribe said. 'Not even King George III, against whom we fought a revolution, had this kind of power, because he needed Parliament. Trump thinks he doesn't even need Congress.' Tribe reminded viewers that it's 'Congress that has the power of the purse' and that Trump 'can't just move billions of bucks from one place to another all by himself.' He also warned of the wider fallout of Trump's targeting of Harvard. 'He's hurting the country,' Tribe said. 'It's not Harvard's interest in these wonderful foreign students that's all at stake. They come here, they meet others, they discover things. Some of them end up winning Nobel prizes. They are performing a great public service. It's a private university but it's providing a public education.' Watch here: Trump 'Clearly' Wants To Avoid 1 Thing With Elon Musk, Says Maggie Haberman Kayleigh McEnany Makes Chilling Demand For '60 Minutes' Reporter Over Anti-Trump Speech Rage Against The Machine's Tom Morello Unleashes Anti-Trump Fury With Flip Of His Guitar
Washington Post
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Kristi Noem botches the definition of habeas corpus in Senate hearing
Politics Noem botches definition of habeas corpus in Senate hearing May 20, 2025 | 6:58 PM GMT Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem appeared not to know what a key constitutional principle was Tuesday when being questioned about her department's mass deportations of migrants at a Senate hearing.
Washington Post
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Against a defiant White House, the courts should use this powerful tool
Justin Levitt is a professor at Loyola Law School focusing on democracy and constitutional law. The American experiment is driven by three branches of government. In this unprecedented moment, one of those engines has flamed out (looking at you, Congress), and another is barely sputtering (hello, executive). But there's more power in the third than we realize. Though Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the 'least dangerous' branch, the courts' centuries-old civil contempt authority makes it plenty mighty when it wants to be.
