The Committee for Justice joined with a group of a dozen conservative organizations and libertarian policy leaders -- who believe that the Constitution's protection of private property extends with undiminished force to intellectual property -- in filing an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC.
Today's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for nominees John Bush and Kevin Newsom produced much debate around the topic of judicial activism. It is therefore fitting for us to look back on a May 2008 speech by Senator John McCain in which the Senator made an eloquent appeal for judicial restraint.
Seemingly unaware of the obvious hypocrisy, Schumer, Leahy and other Democrats accuse President Trump of questioning Judge Robart's legitimacy while doing the same to Gorsuch, a U.S. Court of Appeal judge. To question Judge Gorsuch's ability to remain "independent" is to question his ability to do his job as a judge.
Doubts about Trump faded when Republicans and like-minded voters looked back at the High Court's unmistakably activist decisions on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage, and considered the consequences of a Court dominated by Hillary Clinton appointees.
The Committee for Justice wishes you a happy and healthy 2016 and thanks you for your interest in our work and your generous support throughout 2015.
CFJ President Curt Levey participated in a December 15 panel discussion on the 15th anniversary of Bush v. Gore, hosted by the progressive American Constitution Society.
The first interesting article on judicial nominations that we've seen in the new year is a January 3 Washington Post op-ed by Linda Hirshman, warning that "the next president may be practically powerless when it comes to [Supreme Court] appointments. ... [B]ecause the partisan divide is so deep, it may be impossible to get Supreme Court nominees confirmed." Hirshman notes that there are two paths to a "nomination deadlock":
It is no coincidence that following President Obama's address today about the National Security Agency's (NSA) collection of phone call data, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases concerning the police's warrantless collection of data from the seized cell phones of arrestees. The Court will decide whether the police violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless search and seizure.
Both the NSA controversy and the two cell phone cases (U.S. v. Wurie and Riley v. California) involve the same basic issue: where to draw the boundary between Americans' privacy and the protection of their security - whether from terrorists or common criminals - in light of evolving technology. The Justices undoubtedly have been following the...