The Court: Power, Policy, and Self-Government
Judges must navigate between interpreting the Constitution and statutes, working within existing precedents and applying both bodies of law to particular cases. Striking this balance has policy consequences that render the Supreme Court a political branch in the public's mind. As the heated debate of Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement demonstrates, the Court is no longer seen as the "least dangerous branch." How should justices address this tension in their decisions and opinions? Can the Court return to a narrower vision of its judicial duty? If not, what judicial philosophy best fits the reality of the Court's role in a self-governing republic? Claremont's John Eastman joins an expert panel at the American Enterprise Institute to answer these questions and more. (Dr. Eastman's presentation begins at 65:09.)
John Eastman is Founding Director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and currently serves as the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University’s Dale E. Fowler School of Law. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute.
In this tele-town hall, the Claremont Institute's Dr. Eastman discusses the opinion by Judge Jeffrey Sutton on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the larger circuit-split on the gay marriage cases.
During this interview, Senior Fellow Christopher Caldwell breaks down the effects of the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. Caldwell's interview begins around the 20:45 mark.
In this town hall, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, takes a look at the oral arguments from two of the Supreme Court's recent cases—Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association and Sturgeon v. Frost.