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.)
The States in Action
In Texas v. United States, Texas is joined by 25 other states fighting against the recent executive action to grant deferred deportation status to 4 million illegal immigrants. In Frank v. Walker, Wisconsin recently won the right to enforce its 2012 law requiring photo ID to vote. Dr. Eastman and his guests discuss the legal and political implications of these states' fights to restore the rule of law.
Dr. John C. 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.
John Yoo is a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), where he has taught since 1993.
Hans von Spakovsky is Manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation.
Dr. John C. Eastman is joined by Andrew McCarthy and J. Christian Adams discuss the Jennings v. Rodriquez case as well as Sessions v. Dimaya. There will also be an update on the Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project case. Later in the podcast there will be a discussion on the Gill v. Whitford partisan gerrymandering case.
When the first Civil Service Reform Act passed in 1883, “good government” reformers envisioned nonpartisan civil servants fairly administering the federal bureaucracy.The executive branch increasingly treats agencies like the IRS and the DOJ not as impartial regulators, but as partisan weapons for intimidating political opponents. Co-hosted with the Federalist Society.
Dr. John C. Eastman is joined by Joseph Tartakovsky to discuss the Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer case. Later Eastman is joined by Professor Anthony T. Caso to discuss Justice Neil Gorsuch's confirmation.