The Supreme Court has begun to hear the first arguments of its new term. With cases ranging from the death penalty to affirmative action and election law, this term will reveal more clearly than ever which justices are committed to the original meaning of the Constitution and their methods for interpreting it.
Carrie Severino | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
Carrie Severino is chief counsel and policy director to the Judicial Crisis Network. In that capacity she has briefed Senators and Congressmen on judicial nominations, appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, and C-SPAN, and regularly speaks and writes on judicial issues, particularly the Kagan nomination, the federal nomination process, and state judicial selection.
Until March 2010, she was an Olin/Searle Fellow and a Dean's Visiting Scholar at Georgetown Law Center. She was previously a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and to Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School, cum laude, of Duke University, and holds a Master's degree in Linguistics from Michigan State University.
The justices of the Supreme Court have been toiling behind closed doors for months on major decisions set to be released by the end of the term this coming Thursday. But while most of the hard legal work is already completed, one major challenge for the justices is still ahead: listening to the 10-second-sound-bite versions of their carefully crafted arguments and enduring the often spiteful ad hominem attacks by those who disagree with them.
Justice Clarence Thomas's critics are apparently unsatisfied by the invective and personal attacks that have been hurled at Thomas over the years. The seemingly unending stream of baseless attacks proves that they are engaged in a coordinated effort to impugn his credibility and devalue his vote in one of the most important Supreme Court cases of the 21st century.
Justice Elena Kagan recused herself in 28 of the 76 cases the Supreme Court heard during her first term in office based on her involvement in those cases as solicitor general. But one major recusal issue remains unresolved: whether similar involvement pre-nomination will require Kagan to recuse herself from the controversial cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.