Outside the Beltway

After a day of political pressure, Senate Republicans have agreed to hold a hearing regarding the sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh next week.

Cracks are beginning to show in the previously united Republican front on the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation notwithstanding what appear to be credible allegations of sexual assault.

A woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of having assaulted her when he was 17 and she was 15 has come forward. What happens next is anyone’s guess.

Some last minute dramatics in the Kavanaugh nomination fight, but it seems unlikely to impact the outcome of the nomination fight.

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is, effectively, assured. Democrats should be careful about how much further they push their opposition.

After four days of hearings, the fate of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court seems assured.

The second day of questioning for Judge Brett Kavanaugh was a bit rockier than the first, but nothing happened that seriously threatens his eventual confirmation.

Day One of questions for Judge Brett Kavanaugh went about as you’d expect.

The first day of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings was much ado about pretty much nothing, but then that can be used to describe a process whose outcome is pretty much foreordained.

The confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh begin today, but the outcome seems foreordained.

A good excuse to consider reform.

Tom Nichols argues it should. I disagree.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh reportedly told Senator Susan Collins that he considers Roe v. Wade
“settled law.” This will likely be enough to get her support and that of another holdout Republican Senator.

Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination appears to be on track for confirmation before the new Supreme Court term begins in October.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she’d like to stay on the Court at least until she turns 90, but it’s unlikely she’ll go anywhere voluntarily as long as Donald Trump is President.

Senate Democrats appear to be recognizing that there’s basically nothing they can do to stop the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down part of a Hawaii law barring open carry of weapons, but this win for gun rights advocates may turn out to be short-lived.

A fourth poll in less than a month shows that most Americans support keeping the rights protected in Roe v. Wade alive.

Initial polling on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court find the public more divided than they have been for other recent SCOTUS picks, but that’s unlikely to impact the fate of his nomination.

Another poll shows that the vast majority of Americans do not want to see the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade overturned.

At least in these early days, Democrats appear to lack a coherent message, or a coherent strategy, to propel any effort to block Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

There’s a reason President Trump’s Supreme Court picks are “normal” in a way his national security and economic teams are not.

In one area (with an important caveat) this has been a pretty normal administration.

There are good arguments as to why progressive Senators should vote against his confirmation. Let’s stick to those.

A selection that is likely to keep the Senate GOP united and red-state Democrats up for re-election under pressure to vote to confirm.

Democrats are making largely meaningless appeals to the so-called ‘Merrick Garland Precedent” to argue for a delay in confirming the President’s next Supreme Court nominee. The American people feel differently.

With the President set to announce his Supreme Court pick Monday evening, another name has entered the game.

With Justice Kennedy retiring, the new center of the Roberts Court is likely to be the Chief Justice himself.

A thoughtful liberal argues the Justice has “altered and destroyed his legacy” by allowing Donald Trump to appoint his successor.

Next term, the Justices will revisit the issue of whether someone can be tried in state and Federal Court for the same crime for the first time in nearly sixty years.

The current discussion about SCOTUS is a good excuse to look at how other countries handle these things.

President Trump’s short list of potential Supreme Court nominees consists mostly of conventionally conservative, well-qualified, jurists.

The White House is hoping for a relatively quick turnaround time to pick a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

President Trump is reportedly considering the 47-year-old Utah Senator to replace Anthony Kennedy.

Retiring Arizona Senator Jeff Flake says that he will not seek to block President Trump’s nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

Contrary to what many people have claimed, the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii did not overturn one of the most controversial decisions in its history.

Progressive enthusiasm for the notion that our governing framework is dynamic and ought be constantly updated by the judiciary is waning.

The unconscionable violation of norms in 2016 won’t apply in 2018; it’s a matter of power, not principle.

After thirty years on the bench, during which he played a central role in some of the Supreme Court’s most significant rulings, Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that public sector unions cannot force employees to pay membership fees.

It’s been eight years since we’ve seen a Supreme Court retirement, and despite speculation there were none announced today.

The Supreme Court term began with hopes that the Justices would shake up the redistricting process with rulings against partisan gerrymandering. It has ended with three whimpers.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down a California law requiring Crisis Pregnancy Centers to provide information about abortion.

In a ruling that largely relies on the authority granted by Congress to the President to regulate immigration on national security grounds, the Supreme Court has upheld the final version of the Administration’s travel ban.

In a 5-4 party-line vote, the High Court declared that the Constitution and Federal Law give the President broad authority over immigration.

The Supreme Court has largely rejected a challenge to state and Federal redistricting maps in the State of Texas.

The Supreme Court declined, for now, to hear the appeal of a Washington state florist who declined to provide services for a same-sex wedding. The issues it raises, though, are likely to return to the Court in the future.

In a case that pit the new rules of cyberspace against the old rules about when the Fourth Amendment protects privacy, the Supreme Court ruled today in a way that breathes new life into both privacy and the Fourth Amendment.

Overruling precedent dating back 51 years, the Court has ruled that states can require businesses that sell to residents within their state collect and remit appropriate sales taxes.

We may finally get a ruling applying the Excessive Fine Clause to the states and limiting the ability of police to confiscate property.