Verdict

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut comments on the House Judiciary Committee minority members’ staff report in which Republican members of the committee are seeking to undermine the FBI by portraying it as partisan and dishonest. Mr. Aftergut points out that the report disregards facts in an attempt—consistent with other Republican efforts—to confuse the public about who is telling the truth so that ordinary people busy with their lives disengage and give up trying to figure out the facts. He argues that if Republicans achieve a majority in Tuesday’s midterm election, they will turn America’s premier law enforcement agency into a McCarthy-esque inquisitorial tool in their anticipated Republican presidential administration.

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut explains the stakes of the upcoming election with respect to the shape and legitimacy of the federal courts. Mr. Aftergut points to numerous recent examples of federal district courts and courts of appeals fulfilling their role as factfinders and seekers of truth amid a country awash in election lies and conspiracy theories.

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar, professor Jason Mazzone, and Yale College junior Ethan Yan comment on some of the issues created by Ben Sasse’s (R – Nebraska) expected departure from the U.S. Senate. Dean Amar, Professor Mazzone, and Mr. Yan describe the requirements and constraints of Nebraska state law and the U.S. Constitution.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues that there should be a constitutional right to counsel throughout the execution process, particularly given the frequency with which serious errors occur during that time. Professor Sarat calls upon courts to recognize that the execution process is a “critical stage” of a criminal proceeding deserving the defendant’s right to legal representation.

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the power and limits of financial markets by looking at three examples: (1) the brief tenure of former British Prime Minister Liz Truss, (2) the markets’ lack of response to the US federal debt, and (3) the possibly cataclysmic consequences if, after the midterms, a Republican-controlled Congress refuses to increase the federal debt ceiling.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf argues that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent cases demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s self-professed originalists are acting in bad faith, knowing that professed originalism is no more than a rhetorical envelope they can stuff with their conservative policy views. Professor Dorf explains why the Court’s new test of “text, history, and tradition” is unjust, insincere, and destabilizing.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on the case of Anthony Apanovitch—a man on Ohio’s death row who was exonerated yet whom the state still plans to execute. Professor Sarat describes Apanovitch’s unique situation and calls upon the Ohio Parole Board to recommend to Ohio’s governor that Apanovitch be pardoned and set free.

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan offers yet another illustration of why we need not worry about the national debt—the biggest businesses do it. Professor Buchanan points out that nearly every Fortune 500 company carries debt because doing so is good financial management, and if our country were to be running a surplus, that would mean that the government is collecting more in taxes than it needs to cover current spending.

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar rebuts an argument by Professor Will Baude and Michael McConnell regarding the so-called “Independent State Legislature” theory, which is being invoked by Republican elected legislators in North Carolina in a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Dean Amar explains why the best understanding of the term “legislature” as used in Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution to describe logistics of federal election logistics is “lawmaking system,” rather than a specific entity or body of persons.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on the case of Kenneth Smith, whom Alabama plans to execute by lethal injection on November 17 based on a judge’s decision overriding a jury’s determination that he be sentenced to life in prison rather than death. Professor Sarat explains why such judicial override cases are so unjust, particularly given that Alabama has repealed judicial override (but not retroactively).

In this first of a two-part series of columns responding to a front-page article covering “non-news” about the national debt, UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan responds to the only substantive claim the article raises. Specifically, Professor Buchanan debunks their claim that higher interest rates will create hyperinflation while the bond market melts down.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the oral argument in National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. Ross, in which the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether California’s Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Professor Dorf observes that based on their questioning, the Justices are concerned about the case’s implications for other types of regulations based on a state’s moral interests and may seek a procedural “out” to avoid deciding the difficult question.

In this first of a two-part series of columns responding to a front-page article covering “non-news” about the national debt, UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains how the reporters misleadingly frame a familiar (and wrong) anti-debt argument. Professor Buchanan argues that the reporters highlight an arbitrary “milestone” and inexplicably assign significance to an unremarkable and all but inevitable fact.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin comments on a recently published book by Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick explaining the magic that women bring to law and the courts. Professor Griffin reviews Lithwick’s stories about extraordinary women and relates some of her own, as well.

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone comment on recent comments by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan expressing reservations about doctrinal changes attributable to the arrival of new Justices. Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone argue that new Justices have played an important and generally positive role in advancing the constitutional landscape.

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan points out that contrary to claims by the Republican Party over the past forty years or so, the Declaration of Independence called for more government and more taxes. Professor Buchanan describes the historical context of the Declaration and argues that taxes are necessary if we want to give Americans the best kind of future that we can possibly create.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf explains how Congress can (and argues that it should) protect affirmative action in private colleges and universities in light of the supermajority of the Supreme Court that seems hostile to affirmative action. Professor Dorf points out that even if his suggestion seems far-fetched in the current political climate, urgent calls for action now can effectively arm advocates to effect change when they are better positioned to do so in the future.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on Alabama’s recent aborted execution of Alan Miller. Professor Sarat describes how the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Miller’s execution to go forward despite a serious dispute about whether Miller submitted a form electing an execution method other than lethal injection.

Barry Winograd proposes a four-step plan to restore the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is currently facing a serious public relations problem. Mr. Winograd calls upon the Court itself to act—rather than waiting for the Executive or the Legislative branch—by: (1) providing live and orderly audio transmission of oral arguments, (2) adopting an enforceable code of ethics binding on all Justices, (3) establishing consistent standards limiting use of the Court’s “shadow docket,” and (4) establishing term limits for the Justices.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on the ongoing sentencing trial of Nikolas Cruz, who in 2018 murdered fourteen students and three staff members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Professor Sarat explains the difficulty and complexity of having to decide what punishment an offender deserves—let alone someone guilty of perpetrating such an atrocity—particularly when it is a question of capital punishment or life in prison without the possibility of parole.