ABOUT THIS BLOG

I shall post videos, graphs, news stories, and other material there. We shall use some of this material in class, and you may review the rest at your convenience. You will all receive invitations to post to the blog. (Please let me know if you do not get such an invitation.) I encourage you to use the blog in these ways:
To post questions or comments about the readings before we discuss them in class;
To follow up on class discussions with additional comments or questions.
To post relevant news items or videos.

There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges.


Search This Blog

Sunday, April 12, 2026

Congress and the Judiciary

For next week, which domestic issues do you want to discuss?

Don 't forget your weekly writeups by the end of the week.

SCOTUS as a check on Congress

Congress as a check on the judiciary

Court-stripping (Davidson 355-356)

Amending the Constitution

  • 11th Amendment (1795): Overturned Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which had allowed citizens of one state to sue another state in federal court, restricting federal judicial power over states.
  • 13th Amendment (1865): Abolished slavery, effectively overturning aspects of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had ruled that Congress could not prohibit slavery in territories.
  • 14th Amendment (1868): Granted citizenship to all born/naturalized in the US, directly overturning the Dred Scott ruling that African Americans could not be citizens.
  • 16th Amendment (1913): Authorized a federal income tax, overturning Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which had declared a federal income tax unconstitutional.
  • 26th Amendment (1971): Lowered the voting age to 18, overturning part of Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), which held that Congress could set voting ages for federal elections but not state/local elections. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
  • Impeachment of Judges and the strange case of Alcee Hastings and his comeback De mortuis nil nisi bonum

     Supreme Court Nominations (361-367)

    Fortas roll call:  a filibuster precedent

    In hearings, senators try to get judicial nominees on the record.  NOTE WHAT ALITO SAYS (START AT 18:45) ABOUT STARE DECISIS.






    KBJ




    Blue Slips and Senatorial Courtesy (Davidson, 368-370)

    Applies to US Attorneys:

    No comments:

    Blog Archive