Ahead of the election, a reproductive health law scholar lays out the broad strokes of what both Harris and Trump have done regarding abortion policy while in office.
Academic rigor, journalistic flair
Articles on Judicial appointments
Displaying all articles
In two states with judicial elections − Georgia and Minnesota − nearly every justice steps down midterm, allowing the governor to appoint a successor instead of the state holding an open election.
Appointing individuals who may have links to the party in power is not necessarily troublesome, as long as the process emphasizes legal knowledge and fairness, and not partisan considerations.
Many states have found ways to remove partisan politics from their court systems.
While our judges may prefer their anonymity, the process for choosing who sits on the highest court must be more transparent. Our system is beginning to look outdated.
With Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination, Trump has fulfilled his pledge to replace the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a woman. But female judges don’t all decide alike any more than male judges do.
Amy Coney Barrett may be a woman, but Trump’s other judicial appointments are 85% white and 76% male – the least diverse group of federal judges since Ronald Reagan.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have to be so polarized. Many European countries make judicial appointments in a term-limited, intentionally depoliticized way to promote consensus and compromise.
In the wake of the allegations about Dyson Heydon, a key outstanding question is reforming Australia’s opaque judicial appointments system.
Controversial judicial appointments and divisive court rulings are not the norm everywhere. Here’s what the US could learn from Europe about ensuring ideological balance on the Supreme Court.
There are still far too few female, black, Asian and minority ethnic judges.
A “judicial activist”, it seems, decides cases in favour of a preferred (non-“mainstream”) litigant or interest, to reach a result that is inconsistent with a conservative worldview.
It is no criticism of Australia’s judiciary to say that it would be preferable, both for them and the public, if they took office after a more transparent process.
Late last week, the federal government appointed Geoffrey Nettle, a Victorian Court of Appeal judge, to the High Court to replace retiring justice Susan Crennan. Nettle is an excellent lawyer and his appointment…
Top contributors
-
Professor of Law and Director, Health Law Program, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
-
Dean and Professor of Law, UNSW Sydney
-
Lecturer, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne
-
Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW Sydney
-
Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Newcastle
-
Associate Professor of Political Science, Westminster College
-
Staff Attorney, State Democracy Research Initiative, University of Wisconsin Law School, University of Wisconsin-Madison
-
Associate Professor of Political Science, Oregon State University
-
Staff Attorney, State Democracy Research Initiative, University of Wisconsin Law School, University of Wisconsin-Madison
-
Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
-
Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science, University of Guelph
-
Associate Professor of Law, University of South Australia
-
Professor of Political Science, Purdue University
-
Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor University
-
Professor of Law, Temple University
