Chicago-Kent Law Review Publishes Symposium Issue on The Supreme Court and American Politics

Honored to have given the keynote here

There are some great pieces below.

Vol. 93, Issue 2

The Supreme Court and American Politics

SYMPOSIUM EDITORS
Christopher W. Schmidt
IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Carolyn Shapiro
IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Table of Contents
Live Symposium

Articles


The Supreme Court and American Politics: Symposium Introduction
Christopher W. Schmidt, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Carolyn ShapiroIIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 315 (2018)

Keynote Address: Judging the Political and Political Judging: Justice Scalia as Case Study
Richard L. Hasen, University of California, Irvine School of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 325 (2018)
Abstract: In this Address, Professor Hasen considers through the lens of Justice Scalia’s opinions the role that views of the political process play, at least rhetorically, in how Supreme Court Justices decide cases. Continue—>

Will the Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics in a Polarized America
Kevin J. McMahon, Trinity College
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 343 (2018)
Abstract: This Article examines the concept of a “minority Justice,” meaning a Supreme Court Justice appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote and confirmed with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition. Continue—>

Above Politics: Congress and the Supreme Court in 2017
Jason Mazzone, University of Illinois College of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 373 (2018)
Abstract: The Supreme Court figured prominently in the November 2016 elections because of the vacancy on the Court that resulted from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. This Essay picks up the story by examining the place of the Supreme Court in national politics during 2017. Continue—>

The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court and the 2016 Presidential Campaign
Christopher W. Schmidt, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 411 (2018)
Abstract: This Article considers how presidential candidates use the Supreme Court as an issue in their election campaigns. I focus in particular on 2016, but I try to make sense of this extraordinary election by placing it in the context of presidential elections over the past century. Continue—>

What Members of Congress Say about the Supreme Court and Why It Matters
Carolyn Shapiro, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 453 (2018)
Abstract: Republican and Democratic senators took strikingly different approaches to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. Republicans focused on judicial process—what judges are supposed to do, how they are constrained, and the significance of the constitutional separation of powers—evoking rhetoric long used bu the political right. Continue—>

Neil Gorsuch and the Ginsburg Rules
Lori A. Ringhand, University of Georgia School of Law
Paul M. Collins, Jr., University of Massachusetts Amherst
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 475 (2018)
Abstract: Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Continue—>

Taking Judicial Legitimacy Seriously
Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 505 (2018)
Abstract: Chief Justice Roberts appears worried about judicial legitimacy. In Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, he explicitly worries about the message the Court would send if it wades into the gerrymandering debate. Continue—>

The Consequences of Citizens United: What Do the Lawyers Say?
Ann Southworth, University of California, Irvine School of Law
93 Cʜɪ.-Kᴇɴᴛ L. Rᴇᴠ. 525 (2018)
Abstract: This Essay examines a polarized world of advocacy over campaign finance regulation in the Roberts Court. It considers what lawyers who filed party and amicus briefs in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have to say about the consequences of the decision. Continue—>

 

 

 

Share

Comments are closed.