Kavanaugh's Effect on Supreme Court in Historical Perspective

The U.S. Supreme Court is by far the most important court in the country, so it's the site of the most important judicial selection in the country. This importance is heightened further with selection of a replacement for a "swing vote" like Justice Kennedy, whose seat may soon be filled Brett Kavanaugh. This conservative move is placed in historical context by Emily Bazelon in today's NY Times.

Quick Summaries of Short List for SCT

Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, et al., are discussed by Richard Wolf and David Jackson in USA Today.

Analysis of Judges Kavanaugh and Barrett along with Judges Thomas Hardiman of the Third Circuit, and Amul Thapar and Raymond Kethledge from the Sixth Circuit, by Adam Feldman at Empirical SCOTUS

Listen to the Case for "Political Appointment" of Judges

Vanderbilt Law Professor Brian Fitzpatrick and University of Kansas Law Professor Stephen Ware discuss what Prof. Fitzpatrick's recent paper calls "political appointment" as the best way to select state judges.

The Case for "Political Appointment" of Judges

Vanderbilt Law Professor Brian Fitzpatrick authored a new paper arguing for what he calls "political appointment" as the best way to select state judges.

Prof. Fitzpatrick and I will discuss this paper in a Teleforum this Monday, May
21, 2018, 1:00pm - 2:00pm EDT for the Federalist Society

Ted Cruz Wants Retention Elections for US Supreme Court

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposes subjecting US Supreme Court justices to periodic retention elections, that is, referenda in which citizens choose yes or no whether to the keep the justice or create a vacancy, which would be filled in the usual manner.

This idea is sensibly criticized by George Will,

Former Iowa Supreme Court Justice Decries Judicial Politics

Marsha Ternus writes "In 2010, Iowa voters removed two colleagues and me from the court in a retention (yes-or-no) election. Well-funded out-of-state groups and other critics fueled the ouster drive, decrying a unanimous 2009 court ruling. That decision held an Iowa statute denying civil marriage — and the benefits flowing from that status — to same-sex couples violated their right to equal protection under the Iowa Constitution."  She opposes partisan judicial elections and supports what she calls "merit selection" saying:  "I continue to believe that judicial merit selection systems like Iowa's, incorporating a nonpartisan screening commission and gubernatorial appointment, offer the best defense against politicized courts."  Of course the devil is in the details of who selects members of the commission, that is, who picks the pickers. 

I address Iowa Supreme Court selection and the same-sex marriage case here in a video of a Federalist Society panel in Des Moines.

Republican Judicial Nominees from the Federalist Society

Writing on the US Senate's end to the filibuster for federal judicial nominees (except the Supreme Court), The Wall Street Journal's editorial board says "The next GOP President should line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O'Hare International Airport."

Oklahoma Supreme Court Judicial Selection Reform

An earlier post noted that Oklahoma is considering changes to its judicial selection system.  This upcoming event in Tulsa looks very good because it features a member of the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission and two bright and interesting academic experts, Professors Brian Fitzpatrick (Vanderbilt Law) and Chris Bonneau (U. Pittsburgh).

Another reason to expect this will be a good event: it promises discussion of all three of the common judicial selection methods in the country: "Oklahoma Supreme Court Judicial Selection Reform: Elections vs. Appointment vs. Nominating Committee."  These tend to be much better discussions than discussions considering only two of the three.

Good of the Federalist Society, particularly its Tulsa Lawyers Chapter, to host it.