The recent set of watershed Supreme Court opinions pulsates with the language of democratic accountability. Dobbs v. Jackson, overruling Roe v. Wade, makes its refrain the promise to return the abortion question to the people and their elected representatives. Concurring in West Virginia v. EPA, which restricts regulators ability to decarbonize the electricity grid, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained that the point of the decision was to keep power in the hands of the peoples representatives rather than a ruling class of largely unaccountable ministers. In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York States 117-year-old limitation on carrying weapons, Justice Clarence Thomas presented the Courts severe, originalist approach to the Second Amendment as a vindication of a judgment by the people against wishy-washy federal judges who had let the restriction stand. Indeed, while these opinions have little in common besides their conservative outcomesDobbs eliminated a personal right, Bruen expanded a right, and West Virginia curtailed agency interpretations of statutes such as the Clean Air Actthey all claim to protect the rightful power of the people.
David Litt: A court without precedent
Liberal critics, in turn, have appealed to democracy in attacking the Court as radical and illegitimate. Majorities tend to support abortion rights, climate action, and gun control, they point out, so whatever mythic people the justices have in mind, they are going against those people as they actually exist today. Calls to add justices to the Court, deny it jurisdiction over certain cases, or even impeach some conservative justices all come in the name of greater democratic control. Some progressives hope to get back to a more democratic Constitution, whether it is in the spirit of the reformist Warren Court of the 1950s and 60s (the Court that gave us Brown v. Board of Education and the one-person-one-vote principle); the New Deal vision of a second bill of rights, including rights to good work and economic security; or even an abolition constitution rooted in radical traditions of freedom and equality.
But the Constitution is too fundamentally antidemocratic a document to serve democratic purposes reliably. If we want to make it genuinely and lastingly democratic, we will first have to consider changing it in the most basic way: by amending Article V, which governs amendments and so serves as the gatekeeper for living generations to say what theywebelieve American fundamental law should be. This would be a way of empowering ourselves to become founders, over and over, and not just inheritors.
The feeling that the Court is dangerously abusing its power is a new experience for many of todays liberals (not so for conservatives, who denounced the Court for decades before finally taking it over), but it is just the latest episode of a long-standing dynamic that we might call the Iron Law of Judicial Oligarchy. Because the Constitution establishes fundamental law and is itself hard to amend, judicial interpretation is always a key lever of power in American politics. Because power attracts agendas, various constituencies are always crowding around the Court. Before the Civil War, the justices upheld the prerogatives of slaveholders and the interests of the white oligarchies in the slave states, forming a key part of Southern Democrats grip on national power. Thats why, in his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln warned that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, then the people will have ceased to be their own rulers. From the 1880s through the 1930s, the Court protected capitalist interests from populists, unions, and other radicals, striking down labor regulations, an income tax, and other forward-thinking policies. Progressives rallied against it. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt promised to put the fear of God into judges who had struck down labor legislation. In 1924, the great reformist senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to override Supreme Court decisions that invalidated federal lawsa proposal whose insurrectionary spirit future Justice Felix Frankfurter praised in The New Republic, lamenting of the pro-business jurisprudence of his time, we have never had a more irresponsible Supreme Court.
What has been unusual in the past 70 yearsthat is, all of living memoryis that the Court has been mostly seen as, on balance, a liberal institution, partly on the strength of now long-past desegregation and voting-rights cases, partly because of high-profile LGBTQ-rights cases in more recent decades. That progressive reputation has been largely misplaced for a while. The Court has been expanding protection for big money in politics since 1976, with dramatic developments since Citizens United in 2010. It cut the legs from under the Affordable Care Acts Medicaid expansion in 2012 and from Voting Rights Act enforcement in 2013. It announced a personal right to bear arms outside militia service in 2008. But the term that ended in June 2022 sounded a trumpet blast that no one could ignore. The Court is now seen for what it is: a node of conservative power in American government that will persist for years, regardless of elections and popular opinion.
The flip side of the Iron Law of Judicial Oligarchy is a recurrent populist counterblast to the Courts power, which denies the Courts legitimacy in the name of democracy. Who are these old, politically connected lawyers to tell us what our fundamental law is? Who do they think they are (as Justice John Roberts asked in dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing a right to same-sex marriage)? Progressives asked the same question when the Court was striking down labor laws a century ago. Todays liberals belong to a party, and often to movements, in which elite lawyers have long been overrepresented, and going to court has tended to be the first response to any new political conflict. They are rediscovering that the Court is an oligarchic institution and trying to remember how to be its populist critics. This is a change in worldview, even in identity, for people who have spent their lives regarding the Court as the bulwark of constitutional legitimacy, even against decades of growing counterexamples.
Adam Serwer: Republicans cowardly excuses for not protecting marriage equality
The Constitution produces judicial oligarchy (and inspires populist backlash) through several of its features: federal judges life tenure, their nomination by the president (twice in this century elected by someone who won the Electoral College but lost the national popular votesomething that would have happened again in 2020 with a switch of fewer than 50,000 votes), and their confirmation by the Senate (whose Republican majority during Donald Trumps presidency represented significantly less than half of the countrys population).
But the root of judicial oligarchy is that the Constitution is almost impossible to change. Article V requires that amendments be ratified by three-quarters of the states, either through the state legislatures or in special conventions. (The convention route has happened only once, when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed Prohibition in 1933.) The upshot is that it takes only 13 states to block a proposed amendment. And to send an amendment to the states in the first place, the proposed language must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress.
There is an alternative route, in which two-thirds of state legislatures call on Congress to establish a special convention, which then proposes language to the states; this has never happened. With these hurdles in place, its no wonder that no meaningful amendment has been ratified in 50 years, nor that the fundamental changes in constitutional law for the past centuryupholding the New Deal, pressing desegregation and voting rights, embracing and then rejecting abortion rights, protecting money in politics, establishing a personal right to bear armshave all come through judicial interpretation of the Constitution, not democratic decisions to update the Constitution itself.
It may be hard to see the judicial monopoly on constitutional change (and, by the same token, on constitutional stasis) as the problem with the Constitution, because we are so accustomed to it. How else could a constitution work? But there is an answer right on the face of our Constitution, which opens with the words We the People. That we is the subject of the first sentence of the Constitution, and it goes on to ordain and establish everything that follows. On its own terms, it is law because we made it law.
Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan: The Supreme Court is not supposed to have this much power
But that we isnt us. When that language was ratified in 1789, its we was all male, nearly all white, and mostly restricted to property holders. Every one of its members lived in an 18th-century agrarian republic and died a very long time ago. Even the Fourteenth Amendment, the basis of many modern constitutional rights, was ratified in 1868 by male citizens of a patriarchal country that had just abolished formal slavery. Almost all of those men have been dead for a century or more.
As striking as the demographic differences are between who counted as the people in 1789 or 1868 versus today, the most fundamental problem is the tyranny of the past over the present. If todays Americans could freely decide that the Second Amendments right of the People to keep and bear arms should remain our fundamental law today, it wouldnt really matter that the language was, in a sense, proposed to us by members of a very different, long-ago society. The real scandal of the Constitution is that it gives the living people no real choice in the matter. Past generations dictate our fundamental law.
Indeed, even if those past political processes had been much more inclusive, they would still belong to the past. If we take seriously the democratic principle of ratification that the phrase We the People suggests, then nothing can make another generations fundamental law count as ours except our consenting to it. In American constitutional law, silencethe fact that we have not amended the Constitutioncounts as consent. But because amending the Constitution is nearly impossible, our silence is compelled, then laundered into consent.
Plenty of efforts have been made to square this circle, but none has really worked. The justices of the Supreme Court interpret an old and rather brief Constitution, and they do so under constant pressure from talented lawyers to find new meanings in phrases such as equal protection of the laws, words like liberty, or the general pattern of authority that the Constitution creates among the states and the national government. No wonder so many of the justices opinions seem to come down to what W. E. B. Du Bois in Black Reconstruction impatiently called incantation and abracadabra.
At the moment, the most notorious abracadabra is originalism. The method of the Courts recent gun-rights decisions, and deeply influential in its rejection of Roe (although Justice Samuel Alito presented his analysis in Dobbs as more traditionalist than strictly originalist), it purports to anchor constitutional interpretation to the public meaning the words had when they were ratified. Originalism strikes its critics as ancestor worshipworse, the selective worship of some Americans white, property-holding, male ancestors. But as the late Justice Antonin Scalia often explained, the basic theory of originalism is that the Constitution changes only when the people mobilize to change it. The alternative, he warned, was that it would change whenever five justices changed their minds, which would put ultimate political power in the hands of the Court. Originalism makes what sense it does because it is a way of defining the justices power as compatible with democracyat least notionally.
Due to its premise that legitimate constitutional change comes only from the people, originalism would be a pretty solid way to interpret a constitution that living majorities had meaningful power to change. Were the amendment process a lower hurdle, it really would make sense to say that if we havent made new fundamental law, that must show that we are content with the old law. But our Constitution is not that kind.
Because constitutional text is effectively closed to change, anti-originalist justices have felt justified in finding new constitutional meanings in the old language. After all, the world changes; who else but judges will change the Constitution accordingly? The passage of time brings new insights, former Justice Anthony Kennedy replied to Justice Scalia in Obergefell, and only expansive interpretation can bring those insights into the old text. Freedom and equality have very different meanings in our lives today than in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. Why should the Constitution be stuck when the rest of us are moving on, using old words in new ways?
Each side can clearly see Du Boiss abracadabra in the other. Each is partly right about the others democracy problem. Living constitutionalism is sincerely motivated, but its originalist critics are not wrong: It does amount to saying that, on key issues, the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court, as Justice Scalia pungently put it. By the same token, with a frozen constitutional text, originalism can handcuff a diverse and changing country to old and unwelcome principlesa colonial-era right to bear arms, or, as Justice Thomas has proposed, a constitutional ban on most federal environmental law (ecology having been far from the Founders minds).
But even saying that originalism keeps us trapped in the past takes it too much on its own terms: What it does, rather, is carry us into the future in the way preferred by a handful of right-wing jurists. Its appeals to a certain kind of constitutional democracy do not make it any less a version of judicial oligarchy. Originalism is not conservative in the sense of preserving legal principle. Rather, it is radical: a recipe for uprooting key features of modern law, including (at least) labor and safety regulations as well as environmental law. And originalists have no special mind-meld with the founding generation or with constitutional principle. Like anyone else playing the judicial-review game, they decide questions of fundamental law through the votes of nine politically connected judges.
Ryan D. Doerfler and Samuel Moyn: Reform the Court but dont pack it
The real irony in originalisms march to the heights of judicial power is that, under the banner of loyalty to law, history, and the prerogatives of democracy, originalists (and the rest of the conservative legal movement) pursued a strategy that showed just the opposite conviction: In an oligarchy, power belongs to those who choose and train the oligarchs. Over more than four decades, the Federalist Society has recruited, trained, and placed a right-wing legal elite in the countrys top institutions. It has done so because conservatives in the 1970sthe last decade when it was really possible to regard courts as vehicles of broad progressive reformsaw the legal profession as suffused with broadly liberal politics and jurisprudence. Legal liberals regarded their hegemony as the natural and proper state of the law. They recruited, trained, and placed their own legal elite, and thus provided the model for right-wing institution-building. The difference was that many liberals had grown complacent enough to forget that they were engaged in an ideological battle for control of oligarchic institutions. The conservative insurrectionaries did not forget.
Both originalism and living constitutionalism are versions of judicial oligarchy, fought out in battles for control of the courts. They cannot be anything else in a country with a frozen Constitution and partisan courts. The judicial opinions that the public reads are a kind of bookkeeping, documenting the balance of power. The Dobbs opinion had been written for years, in originalist dissents from abortion cases, in Federalist Society talks and journals. Justice Alitos 79 pages, plus appendices, is how the Supreme Court writes 63. That is six votes out of some 330 million Americans. But then again, Obergefell had only five.
So do we need to line up with our preferred oligarchs and fight like hell for control of judicial seats? Quite understandably, this has been the progressive attitude. It has the virtue of pragmatism. But it has the vice of accepting that we live under a basically undemocratic Constitution.
A more directly democratic approach would bring that pregnant phrase We the People back to life in the 21st century. This would mean amending Article V so that living generations could amend the Constitution and make a fundamental law that is actually our law.
The concrete results could be dramatic. Based on public-opinion polling, they might well include reinstating a baseline national abortion right, allowing for gun regulation that promotes public safety, and reauthorizing Congress and state legislatures to limit the campaign spending of corporations and wealthy individuals. Constitutional amendment could reform or eliminate the Electoral College, empowering national majorities to choose the president. It would be an opportunity to take on gerrymandering for House seats and the Senates two-seat-per-state structureboth major vehicles for minority rule.
There would be a more basic benefit too. A constitution makes democratic sense as a fundamental law, a limit on what legislatures and executives and even majorities of citizens can do with government power, if and only if those who live with it can consent to it when they wish, and change it otherwise. This was very clear to some of our Constitutions Framers, such as James Wilson (also an early Supreme Court justice), who insisted that the people would be able to change the Constitution whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them. Although James Madison wrote that the Constitution he did so much to design was marked by the total of exclusion of the people in their collective capacity from any share in governmentthat is, our system boxes out direct democracyhe also held that the power to alter or abolish its established government always resided with the majority. (He justified the Constitutions arcane amendment process by denying that the United States was a nation; he considered it a hybrid of a nation and a confederationa position that far fewer citizens would find plausible today than in 1787.) To boil it down: Constitutional commitments have authority, as the Constitutions first words indicate, because they are the peoples commitments.
Its fine and good for judges to enforce these commitments and inevitably disagree about their meaning, as long as the people can give the final word. Originalisms basic problem is that living generations have no real way of consenting to the old Constitution. Living constitutionalisms basic problem is that living generations have no decisive way of stating what fundamental law they would prefer. Enhancing the democratic power to change or reaffirm the Constitution would solve both problemsand dissolve the need for both originalism and living constitutionalism as we know them.
How should we go about changing the Constitution, if we could? There is a lot of value in giving constitutional change a separate track from ordinary politics, so it does not become just another partisan football. Constitutional principles should come from the people in a different sense than laws, presidential elections, or midterms do. One way would be to hold a constitutional convention every generation, staffed by a blend of specially elected delegates, senior public officials, and, perhaps, citizens selected jury-style to represent everyday experience. The convention might proceed in two stages: state, local, or regional versions channeling their results and some of their personnel into a national convention. The convention would propose any constitutional changes its members endorsed, which would then go to a special national referendum. Offered, say, a proposal to reinstate Roe, authorize campaign-finance regulation, or rebalance the Senate, the people would speak via this process as a we.
Constitutional conventions have about the same odor in liberal circles as citizen sheriffs and the posse comitatuscranky tricorne-hat stuff interesting only to the populist right. This impression gets a boost from the ongoing conservative effort to call a convention through state legislatures, with the goal of amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, term limits for federal regulators, and perhaps some other right-wing goals. But nothing about constitutional revision is intrinsically conservativequite the contraryand if it seems cranky, that is only because liberals became too comfortable with the idea that the Constitution was basically democratic enough and that the courts were politically congenial. Those conceits are hard to sustain now.
The most basic reason for constitutional change is not partisan at all, despite the fact that the right benefits from a frozen, anti-majoritarian Constitution and liberals are currently angry at the Supreme Court. Re-creating a constitutional politics for living citizens would make democratic self-rule a reality for everyone. The highest civic compliment we could pay one another would be to prefer the results of deliberation and voting today to an old Constitution interpreted by a few judges.
Could it really happen? After all, we start out in the world of Article Vs high barrier to change.
The first thing to see is that it will never happen if we dont think it will. Mass movements for constitutional change did succeed in the past, before all constitutional politics went to the courts. Mobilized citizens stripped the power to appoint senators from their state legislatures (and forced those same legislatures to ratify the change), authorized a federal income tax, granted women the vote, and, for better or worse, adopted and then repealed Prohibition.
Second, as noted, important constitutional Framers argued that the right to reform the Constitution belonged inalienably to the people. There is something to be said for an open, fully democratic effort to put a change to Article V directly onto a national ballot, to stand or fall with the choice of the living majority. Constitutional rules are important, and backroom or minoritarian coups are always illegitimate, but if a constitution is about letting a people set their own fundamental law, then the people should be able to act democratically in order to make a more democratic constitution.
What about the dangers of majority rule? Generations of Americans have learned that constitutional barriers protect us from the tyranny of the majority. Would a more democratic Constitution dissolve those barriers?
There is no reason to expect that it would. A periodic convention to reassess the Constitution is a far cry from rolling referenda on whatever question arouses a moments passion. The First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the equal-protection clause, and so forth would be re-ratified in almost any imaginable constitutional processperhaps with some clarification that, for instance, freedom of speech does not mean unlimited money in politics. In any case, if majorities really wanted to reject these principles root and branch, courts would not save them from themselves for long.
Any government can hurt people. Power is always dangerous. Recent Supreme Court decisions are a reminder that channeling power through old texts and the decisions of robed lawyers does not mean it ceases being power. Democracy is the gamble that, all things considered, we are our own best rulers, and can trust one another further than we can trust any version of minority rulejudicial, geographic, class, or otherwise. To come closer to that principle, we need a Constitution that empowers us, the people (no need for capitalization), to set our own fundamental law.
Read this article:
We Can Be Framers Too - The Atlantic
- VANDA Pharmaceuticals States a Fifth Amendment Claim against the Government for Taking a Trade Secret - Trade Secrets Trends - February 13th, 2024 [February 13th, 2024]
- Attorneys argue shooters Fifth Amendment rights on the 4th day of the Jennifer Crumbley trial - Detroit News - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Judge will not allow Michigan school shooter to testify in mother's trial if he invokes the Fifth Amendment - AppleValleyNewsNow.com - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Shamoon v. Resideo: Obviousness affirmed - Patently-O - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- Billings County sued over eminent domain as bridge dispute rekindles - Bismarck Tribune - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- 'Tyler' and a Call for Reform of the New Jersey Tax Foreclosure ... - Law.com - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- "Like fatter Tony Soprano Attending the Arraignment and "Effect[ing ... - Emptywheel - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- Call to faith-based leaders to help end violence; Parents need to pay ... - Capital Gazette - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- "Stunning development": Experts say Trump target letter is surest ... - Salon - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- LIV, PGA drop a bombshell on Washington - POLITICO - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- Congressman Matt Gaetz Introduces Resolution to Hold Former ... - Congressman Matt Gaetz - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- It's time to end home equity theft in Maine - Bangor Daily News - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- Louisiana's Sabine River Authority Not Entitled To Sovereign Immunity - The Energy Law Blog - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Ninth Circuit Finds that Criminal Reentry Provision Not Driven by ... - Immigration Blog - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Ken Paxton Impeached on 20 Charges Including Bribery ... - The Texan - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Simply losing it: Bitter fight brews over federal judges forced retirement effort - Yahoo News - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Worth County Board of Supervisors Meeting (LIVE) - KIOW.com - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Trump Organization finishes last in brand reputation survey for second straight year - The Hill - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- They held down a Black teen who tried to shoplift. He died from ... - Wisconsin Examiner - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- What is the Fifth Amendment, and how has it been used? : NPR - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]
- Tmc the Metals Company Inc. Enters into Fifth Amendment to Pilot Mining Test Agreement and Third Amendment to Strategic Alliance Agreement, Which Is... - February 20th, 2023 [February 20th, 2023]
- Interpretation: The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution ... - January 31st, 2023 [January 31st, 2023]
- Fifth Amendment invoked to the point of 'unintentional hilarity' by Jan ... - December 26th, 2022 [December 26th, 2022]
- Why Did Trump Plead The Fifth Amendment?What We Do Know ... - Newsweek - October 25th, 2022 [October 25th, 2022]
- Understanding the Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- US Government for Kids: Fifth Amendment - Ducksters - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Donald Trump loves to plead the Fifth. It won't save him this time. - MSNBC - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Georgia Special Purpose Grand Juries But Were Afraid to Ask - Lawfare - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Citing double jeopardy, Fargo man who killed 14-year-old Jupiter Paulsen wants murder conviction dropped - INFORUM - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Nicki Clyne: What Happened to NXIVM Member and Where Is She Now? - Newsweek - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- New York AG Asks Judge to Prevent Trumps From Hiding Assets Mother Jones - Mother Jones - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- Trump Will Finally Have to Face Questions About Alleged Rape, Judge Rules - VICE - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- 'In the Heat of the Night' star Lee Grant on working with Sidney Poitier and being blacklisted by Hollywood - Yahoo Entertainment - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- THE OTHER SIDE: Orange Jesus took the Fifth - theberkshireedge.com - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- BNP Paribas : 5th amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document - Marketscreener.com - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Tlingit tribal member shares his story of helping the Yakamas get Mount Adams back - Yakima Herald-Republic - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Trump Pleading the Fifth Might Have Doomed Him in Civil Case - Newsweek - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- Why is Kevin McCarthy Promising to Remove Parents from the Terrorist Watch List? - Daily Kos - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- Alex Jones said he may have to plead the Fifth as he's set to testify - Insider - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- USS Fitzgerald and ACX Crystal collision: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delineates the reach of personal jurisdiction - GARD - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Trump investigation tracker: Keeping up with Trump's many legal issues - Grid - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Bo Dukes's conviction to stand following motion for new trial - Douglas Now - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- VAIL RESORTS INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet... - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- It's brother vs. brother at trial over NYC slaying of mobbed-up dad, 'Sally Daz' Zottola - New York Post - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Letters: Boater offers different perspective on the Playpen - Chicago Tribune - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Michael Flynn: From Government Insider to Holy Warrior - PBS - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Hamel found guilty of Athol murder, sentenced to life in prison - The Recorder - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Biden Slowly Winning LBJ- and FDR-Like Praise As Legislative Victories Mount - Seattle Medium - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Vice Principals, the Fifth Amendment, and Negative Inferences - JD Supra - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- PERMA FIX ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an... - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- Letter: Invoking the Fifth Amendment is not an admission of guilt - INFORUM - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- Taking the Fifth, FBI attacked: 5 takeaways of Gov. Whitmer kidnap trial - MLive.com - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- How much money could Donald Trump have to pay in fines if his businesses are penalized? - AS USA - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- A high stake debate and tension at the GOP convention: Your guide to Michigan politics - MLive.com - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- For 38 Years of American History, There Has Been No Vice President - History News Network - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- Emmett Till is gone. The quest for justice lives on. - New York Daily News - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- 'A bold-faced LIE': St. Louis mayor blasts Black police officer groups criticism of oversight bill - KSDK.com - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- He has done more to further the cause of hate in the US than almost anyone: the rise and fall of Alex Jones - The Guardian - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- Even the District Attorney Believed Joaquin Ciria Was Innocent. Why Did It Take So Long to Set Him Free? - POLITICO - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- Understanding the Constitution: Why It Doesn't Protect the Unborn - The Epoch Times - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Former fugitive charged with rape in Deerfield case demands new lawyer - The Recorder - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Sources: Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Testify Before NY AG's Office in Finance Probe, Neither Pleads the 5th - NBC New York - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Time running out to try Catherine Hoggle for the disappearance, suspected murder of her 2 kids - WUSA9.com - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Trump faces uphill fight on executive privilege in DOJ probe - POLITICO - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Charles Milliken: Defining what exactly is a 'right' - Monroe Evening News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- How grand juries work and why Jan. 6 prosecutors are relying on them - Salon - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Roe, Dobbs and women's rights New York Daily News - New York Daily News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Partisan congressional hearings are a threat to all citizens - Monroe Evening News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- 9 years after a UIW police officer shot student Cameron Redus, the case is going to trial - San Antonio Express-News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Outcome of first kidnapping trial can't be used as evidence in second trial, judge rules - Michigan Radio - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Washington County woman held in death of 5-year-old son - Herald-Mail Media - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- What Did the Dissenting Justices Think About the Power of Military Authorities & More - The Soldiers Project - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Whipping the votes in Suffolk - Newsday - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- If Trump Takes the Fifth, Is He Guilty? - Law & Crime - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Anambra House of Assembly Passes 5th Amendment Bills - TVC News - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- How do grand juries work? Their major role in criminal justice, and why prosecutors are using them to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020... - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- We need to hear the unbiased story - Villages-News - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Outcome of first kidnapping trial can't be used as evidence in second trial, judge rules - WKAR - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- LOVERRO: The weight on Rivera's shoulders is inevitably about much more than football - Washington Times - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Letters to the Editor Monday, July 25 The Daily Gazette - The Daily Gazette - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]