SYMPOSIUM EDITORS Carolyn Shapiro<\/a> Table of Contents The Supreme Court and American Politics: Symposium Introduction<\/span><\/a> Keynote Address: Judging the Political and Political Judging: Justice Scalia as Case Study<\/span> Will the Supreme Court Still “Seldom Stray Very Far”?: Regime Politics in a Polarized America<\/span> Above Politics: Congress and the Supreme Court in 2017<\/span> The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court and the 2016 Presidential Campaign<\/span> What Members of Congress Say about the Supreme Court and Why It Matters<\/span> Neil Gorsuch and the Ginsburg Rules<\/span><\/span> Taking Judicial Legitimacy Seriously<\/span> The Consequences of\u00a0Citizens United<\/em>: What Do the Lawyers Say?<\/span> <\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Christopher W. Schmidt<\/a>
\nIIT Chicago-Kent College of Law<\/em><\/p>\n
\nIIT Chicago-Kent College of Law<\/em><\/p>\n
\n<\/a>Live Symposium<\/a><\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
\n
\nChristopher W. Schmidt<\/strong>, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
\n<\/em>Carolyn Shapiro<\/strong><\/em>,\u00a0IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law<\/em>
\n<\/em>93 C\u029c\u026a.-K\u1d07\u0274\u1d1b L. R\u1d07\u1d20.\u00a0315 (2018)<\/p>\n
\nRichard L. Hasen<\/strong>,\u00a0University of California, Irvine School of Law<\/em>
\n<\/em>93 C\u029c\u026a.-K\u1d07\u0274\u1d1b L. R\u1d07\u1d20.\u00a0325 (2018)
\nAbstract<\/strong><\/span>:<\/span>\u00a0In this Address, Professor Hasen considers through the lens of Justice Scalia’s opinions the role that views of the political process play, at least rhetorically, in how Supreme Court Justices decide cases. Continue\u2014><\/a><\/p>\n
\nKevin J. McMahon<\/strong>,\u00a0Trinity College<\/em>
\n<\/em>93 C\u029c\u026a.-K\u1d07\u0274\u1d1b L. R\u1d07\u1d20.\u00a0343 (2018)
\nAbstract<\/strong><\/span>:<\/span>\u00a0This Article examines the concept of a “minority Justice,” meaning a Supreme Court Justice appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote and confirmed with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition. Continue\u2014><\/a><\/p>\n
\nJason Mazzone<\/strong>,\u00a0University of Illinois College of Law<\/em>
\n<\/em>93 C\u029c\u026a.-K\u1d07\u0274\u1d1b L. R\u1d07\u1d20.\u00a0373 (2018)
\nAbstract<\/strong><\/span>:<\/span>\u00a0The Supreme Court figured prominently in the November 2016 elections because of the vacancy on the Court that resulted from the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. This Essay picks up the story by examining the place of the Supreme Court in national politics during 2017. Continue\u2014><\/a><\/p>\n
\nChristopher W. Schmidt<\/strong>,\u00a0IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law<\/em>
\n<\/em>93 C\u029c\u026a.-K\u1d07\u0274\u1d1b L. R\u1d07\u1d20.\u00a0411 (2018)
\nAbstract<\/strong><\/span>:<\/span>\u00a0This Article considers how presidential candidates use the Supreme Court as an issue in their election campaigns. I focus in particular on 2016, but I try to make sense of this extraordinary election by placing it in the context of presidential elections over the past century. Continue\u2014><\/a><\/p>\n
\nCarolyn Shapiro<\/strong>,\u00a0IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law<\/em>
\n<\/em>93 C\u029c\u026a.-K\u1d07\u0274\u1d1b L. R\u1d07\u1d20.\u00a0453 (2018)
\nAbstract<\/strong><\/span>:<\/span>\u00a0Republican and Democratic senators took strikingly different approaches to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. Republicans focused on judicial process\u2014what judges are supposed to do, how they are constrained, and the significance of the constitutional separation of powers\u2014evoking rhetoric long used bu the political right. Continue\u2014><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLori A. Ringhand<\/strong>,\u00a0University of Georgia School of Law
\n<\/em>Paul M. Collins, Jr.<\/strong><\/em>,<\/em>\u00a0University of Massachusetts Amherst<\/em>
\n<\/em>93 C\u029c\u026a.-K\u1d07\u0274\u1d1b L. R\u1d07\u1d20.\u00a0475 (2018)
\nAbstract<\/strong><\/span>:<\/span>\u00a0Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee frequently invoke the so-called “Ginsburg Rule” to justify not answering questions posed to them. According to this “rule,” nominees during their testimony must avoid signaling their preferences about previously decided Supreme Court cases or constitutional issues. Continue\u2014><\/a><\/p>\n
\nLuis Fuentes-Rohwer<\/strong>,\u00a0Indiana University Maurer School of Law<\/em>
\n<\/em>93 C\u029c\u026a.-K\u1d07\u0274\u1d1b L. R\u1d07\u1d20.\u00a0505 (2018)
\nAbstract<\/strong><\/span>:<\/span>\u00a0Chief Justice Roberts appears worried about judicial legitimacy. In Gill v. Whitford, the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, he explicitly worries about the message the Court would send if it wades into the gerrymandering debate. Continue\u2014><\/a><\/p>\n
\nAnn Southworth<\/strong>,\u00a0University of California, Irvine School of Law<\/em>
\n<\/em>93 C\u029c\u026a.-K\u1d07\u0274\u1d1b L. R\u1d07\u1d20.\u00a0525 (2018)
\nAbstract<\/strong><\/span>:<\/span>\u00a0This Essay examines a polarized world of advocacy over campaign finance regulation in the Roberts Court. It considers what lawyers who filed party and amicus briefs in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have to say about the consequences of the decision. Continue\u2014><\/a><\/p>\nStudent Notes & Comments<\/h3>\n
\n