This week witnessed a treasure trove of discussions and dissent in the legal space. Acclaimed content from Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog, the internet’s pioneering ground for noteworthy appellate litigation, draws our attention to some of them.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was reported addressing an audience about upcoming ‘concrete steps’ to enhance Supreme Court ethics. Cited by Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Kavanaugh expressed the unanimous commitment of the nine justices to uphold the institution’s respect.
There has also been praise of Anita Earls for carrying out judicial responsibilities faithfully. Jay Willis’s post at Balls and Strikes suggests that Earls’ forthright acknowledgement of the legal system’s limitations should be a precedent for all courts to abide by.
The gap in racial and ethnic representation in America’s state supreme courts has apparently widened, as noted by Aaron Mendelson of The Center for Public Integrity in his report. Critics claim that the current composition of the court does not genuinely mirror the diversity in America.
Meanwhile, Clarence Thomas’s popularity is on a decline, as argued by Harry Enten of the CNN. It appears that Americans are growing increasingly in favor of an ethics code for the Supreme Court.
Focusing on the effects of gifts on professionals, Professor Adriane Fugh-Berman argues that even Supreme Court Justices might be swayed by gifts, much like their counterparts in other domains. Her thought-provoking essay in The Atlantic emphasizes that nobody is completely immune to the potential influence of presents.
More about these compelling narratives and others may be found in the How Appealing Weekly Roundup.