While President Trump was admonishing the press about its fake news yesterday, the left-leaning Alliance for Justice published some fake news of its own, titled "The Gorsuch Record." The Gorsuch opinions and other materials cited by the AFJ report are real, but the conclusions it draws are fake - very fake.
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.
In an op-ed in The Hill, Curt Levey writes that the "tried-and-true playbooks may turn out to be of little use in this contest, but ... the game will be gripping. He's talking not about the Super Bowl, but about the battle over the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Writing from the perspective of a "dozen years of watching these battles from up close," Mr. Levey discusses "the unique aspects of this confirmation fight."
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...
Today the Supreme Court hears oral argument in the biggest campaign finance case since Citizens United, and the Committee for Justice has weighed in on the side of free speech. CFJ’s amicus brief in today’s case, McCutcheon v. FEC, supports the Republican National Committee and campaign donor Shaun McCutcheon in their First Amendment challenge to the aggregate contribution limits imposed by McCain-Feingold.
This week, the Committee for Justice filed an amicus curiae brief in McCutcheon v. FEC, the next big campaign finance case before the U.S. Supreme Court. CFJ’s brief supports the Republican National Committee and individual plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon in their First Amendment challenge to the aggregate contribution limits imposed by McCain-Feingold. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case this fall. CFJ president Curt Levey described the brief as “part of CFJ’s continuing effort to battle judicial activism. Prior to the Roberts Court, the Supreme Court functioned more as legislators than judges on this issue, bending the First Amendment to accommodate the push for campaign finance reform. The result is a politically convenient b...