Courts (page 6)

  • Post

    New Carolina Journal Online features

    Carolina Journal Online reports on Gov. Roy Cooper’s first veto, which targets a bill that would return party labels to judicial elections. Jenna Robinson’s Daily Journal describes an “arms race” in higher education focusing on amenities for students.
    Mitch Kokai, March 17, 2017
  • Post

    New Carolina Journal Online features

    Barry Smith reports for Carolina Journal Online on Gov. Roy Cooper’s attempt to find “common ground” with state lawmakers while delivering his first State of the State address. The Daily Journal explains why the notion of keeping politics off the judicial bench makes sense, but not…
    Mitch Kokai, March 14, 2017
  • Post

    An ill-advised attack on Gorsuch

    Alexandra Desanctis writes at National Review Online about a smear campaign targeting U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. On Monday morning, eleven progressive groups sent a joint letter to Senate Democrats, urging them to oppose Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court on the…
    Mitch Kokai, March 8, 2017
  • Post

    New Carolina Journal Online features

    Barry Smith reports for Carolina Journal Online on a three-judge panel’s response to the power struggle between Gov. Roy Cooper and legislative leaders. John Hood’s Daily Journal explains why Gov. Roy Cooper’s budget proposal marks a defeat for the political Left.
    Mitch Kokai, March 8, 2017
  • Post

    Appellate judges uphold trial court in Burlington press fight

    A unanimous three-judge panel of the N.C. Court of Appeals has upheld a trial court ruling in the legal fight pitting the Burlington Times-News against the Alamance County school board. The newspaper had appealed the initial ruling, which allowed the school board to redact portions of minutes from closed-session meetings.
    Mitch Kokai, March 7, 2017
  • Post

    What’s a ute?

    Kevin Daley of the Daily Caller explains one way in which popular culture has influenced federal courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that a group of left-wing demonstrators may face federal charges for disrupting proceedings at the Supreme…
    Mitch Kokai, March 7, 2017
  • Post

    Gorsuch and Chevron

    Among the reasons some right-of-center legal eagles like the prospect of adding Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court is his stance on legal precedents involving federal administrative agencies. Tara Helfman explains in a Commentary column. Nowhere has Gorsuch more boldly proven his…
    Mitch Kokai, March 3, 2017
  • Post

    Re: Another critique of the ‘efficiency gap’

    Two months ago, "The Locker Room" highlighted a Commentary magazine article that questioned so-called "efficiency gap" analysis as a tool for helping judges determine whether lawmakers have engaged in "too much" partisan gerrymandering when they draw election district maps. The latest issue of Commentary features my letter responding to the article from Syracuse law professor Tara Helfman. The original version of the letter is printed below. Follow this link for the slightly edited Commentary version of the letter, along with Helfman's courteous and informative reply. Thank you to Tara Helfman for highlighting recent developments in the complicated struggle over the future of electoral gerrymandering (“Is the Gerrymander on Its Way Out?,” January 2017). Some additional facts might help readers cultivate an even better understanding of the issue. First, Helfman notes U.S. Supreme Court justices’ “palpable” frustration during oral argument over recent redistricting cases from Virginia and North Carolina. To some extent, those justices have only themselves to blame. That’s because they have not set a clear standard differentiating an acceptable amount of partisanship in drawing election maps from unconstitutionally excessive partisanship. Helfman’s article notes that the Supreme Court “declined to invalidate” a “meandering Pennsylvania redistricting map” in 2004. Left out of her analysis was the fact that five of the nine justices might have struck that map down had they agreed on a means. While the court’s so-called conservative bloc agreed with the late Justice Antonin Scalia that partisan gerrymandering was a political issue that courts ought not address, the opposing liberal bloc disagreed. It proposed potential tests for determining whether a partisan gerrymander was unconstitutional.
    Mitch Kokai, March 1, 2017