There is a general lesson here. A Republican appointee to the Supreme Court, having served for thirty-five years with mostly Republican appointees and under three Republican chief justices, is arguing for constitutional amendments that would largely entrench judicial restraint, and that would reduce the role of the federal courts in American political life. His proposals attest to the fact that in recent decades, the most aggressive judicial decisions have tended to come from the right—and have an uncomfortable overlap with the political positions of the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
Appeals Court Overturns Decision to Reject S.E.C.-Citigroup Settlement
A federal appeals court on Wednesday overturned a judge’s decision to reject a federal settlement deal with Citigroup, undercutting the judge’s concerns that the bank got off with little more than a slap on the wrist.
.. The judge called the fine “pocket change” for the bank. He also took aim at the S.E.C.’s decision to allow Citigroup to settle the case without admitting wrongdoing, saying the parties deprived the public “of ever knowing the truth in a matter of obvious public importance.”
Supreme Court: Polar Vision
I wonder whether the Supreme Court itself has become an engine of polarization, keeping old culture-war battles alive and forcing to the surface old conflicts that people were managing to live with. Suppose, in other words, that instead of blaming our politics for giving us the court we have, we should place on the court at least some of the blame for our politics.
Credit Suisse Pleads Guilty in Tax Evasion Case
For one, the plea deal will not require the bank to turn over the names of its American clients, a hot-button issue in Congress. Credit Suisse has argued that Swiss law prevented it from turning over the names of its American clients.