Judicial System

The Takeaway

Campaign Ads Sway Judicial Decisions

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

A new study has found that Citizens United has had an impact not only on elections, but on judicial decisions in the courtroom.

Comments [2]

The Takeaway

President Obama Pushes to Diversify Judiciary

Wednesday, March 06, 2013

In the past several months, President Obama has been making a quiet push to change the face of the nation's judicial system with a slow and steady stream of diverse nominees for federal courts.  In Florida, he's nominated the first openly gay black man to serve on federal district court.  In New York, he nominated the first Asian American lesbian. And in DC, he's nominated the first South Asian to sit on the US Court of Appeals.  Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund explains what hurdles these candidates may face and what potential these nominations represent.

Comments [2]

The Brian Lehrer Show

Judicial Activism 2012

Thursday, April 05, 2012

Anup Malani, professor of law and health law at the University of Chicago, discusses the line between the courts and the administration -- from President Obama applying pressure on the Supreme Court to a Fifth Circuit judge calling out the Justice Department.

Comments [13]

The Leonard Lopate Show

Backstory: The Increasing Influence of Money in Judicial Elections

Thursday, November 10, 2011

In the last decade, spending on campaigns for state Supreme Court positions has more than doubled. On today’s second Backstory, Adam Skaggs, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, discusses why these races are attracting more and more money and what it means for our judiciary system.

Comments [3]


Panel Votes To Raise Pay For State Judges

Friday, August 26, 2011

A state panel charged with setting new salaries for New York state judges has decided to raise their pay by 27 percent over the next three years.


The Takeaway

Gender and the Supreme Court's Wal-Mart Case

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The arguments being heard by the Supreme Court today in Dukes vs. Wal-Mart are about whether there is enough of a connection between 1.5 million workers to validate their discrimination as a class-action suit. But this is not just the largest class-action suit ever, it is also the largest gender discrimination case in history. The plaintiffs are arguing that the world’s largest corporation maintained paid women less money, denied them promotions, and perpetuated a culture rife with gender stereotyping. And it will be heard by a Supreme Court with three female Justices — the most ever in history. Will their decision come down to gender vs. business?

Comments [2]

The Takeaway

Supreme Court Hears Wal-Mart Case

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

For the past 11 years, 1.5 million women have been taking on the world’s largest corporation, Wal-Mart, for what they claim is a corporate practice of gender discrimination. The case would be the largest employment discrimination suit in U.S. history, damages could be in the billions, and the whole process has already dragged on over a decade. But whether that suit will ever be heard in court still has to be decided. Today the United States Supreme Court will hear argument in Wal-Mart vs. Dukes. Their task is to decide whether such a large and diverse group of people — working for shops across the country — can even be considered a “class” and therefore capable of raising a claim.

Comments [1]

It's A Free Country ®

Is There a Good Way to Hire a Judge?

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

How do you hire a judge? It’s a thorny question—who, or what, can be trusted to pick someone who is supposed to be impartial between everyone?


It's A Free Blog

Reading the Constitution's Text Alone Isn't Enough

Thursday, January 06, 2011

One cannot simply read the text of the Constitution and call it a day. The very real danger here is that the new Tea Partiers in Congress (and some of their followers at home) will actually listen to the reading of the 7,591 word document (that includes all 27 amendments) without the benefit of real constitutional understanding.

The original text has evolved a bit over the years. We've changed it not only by adding articles of amendment, but also through two hundred years of jurisprudence. No one can understand the Constitution without some greater understanding of the amendment process and the case law that interprets the text.

Read More

Comments [7]