In July, I published a series of posts evaluating Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. I’ve expanded those posts into an essay, which will be published in the inaugural issue of the Texas A&M Journal of Law & Civil Governance. My article is titled, Reviewing The Three Trump Appointees: Ex Ante and Ex Post. I am honored to serve on the Board of Advisors for this exciting new journal.
Here is the abstract:
Justice Neil Gorsuch has now been on the Supreme Court for six years; Justice Brett Kavanaugh for five years; and Justice Amy Coney Barrett for three years. By virtually any measure, today’s Supreme Court is the most conservative bench in modern history. But it could have been far, far worse for progressives if President Trump had actually nominated Justices in the mold of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
This essay, written for the inaugural issue of the Texas A&M Journal of Law & Civil Governance, provides a prospective and retrospective analysis of the three Trump appointees. Part I begins with cases on the Supreme Court’s merits docket. Part II turns to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. Part III considers what could have been: denials of petitions for writs of certiorari. Part IV will revisit the records of these three justices ex ante and ex post. Very little has surprised me about the Supreme Court over the past several years.
I had to make a few last-minute changes in light of the Dobbs bombshell. More on that story shortly.
The post “Reviewing The Three Trump Appointees: <i>Ex Ante</i> and <i>Ex Post</i>” appeared first on Reason.com.
