The best of 2020

Thanks to all my readers, old and new, for your curiosity and interest, and most importantly for sharing some of your time with us this past year. Here are some of my favorite posts from the past twelve months.

Five reasons why the federal judiciary’s proposed ban on Federalist Society affiliation is a terrible idea (January)

New York judge calls for reform to state bail law (February)

Still more embarassment for the “Chicago Way” of choosing judges (February)

On reforming the Supreme Court (March)

How coronavirus is affecting the courts (March)

Mini-symposium on judicial qualifications and experiential diversity (March):

The virtues of remote access to the Supreme Court (March)

What does a court hearing by videoconference look like? Here’s an example. (April)

COVID-19 and the courts: where we are and where we might be going (April)

The federal courts try to self-censor. A federal judge says no. (May)

Massachusetts courts embrace virtual hearings (June)

The cravenness of Democratic “Court reform” proposals (July)

Does the Roberts Court’s view of executive and legislative power present an alternative case for court reform? (July)

How far can Congress probe the judicial thought process? (July)

COVID’s silent victim in the courts: traditional due process (August)

The mortifying state of our Supreme Court confirmation politics (September)

Jurisdiction stripping is back, this time from the left (October)

On Biden, the Court, and what voters “deserve to know” (October)

A Senator beclowns herself at a Judiciary Committee meeting (again). Facebook rushes to her aid. (October)

Electoral chickens come home to roost in North Carolina courts (November)

State courts confront budget shortfalls in wake of COVID (November)

Making sense of the new PACER bill (December)

Here is the best of 2017, 2018, and 2019. Please visit early and often in 2021!

The best of 2019

As we reach the end of the year, I am resharing some of my favorite posts of 2019. For the first time, I was thrilled to feature the work of two guest bloggers, and several of their posts are included below.

On exasperated judges (January 10)

The importance of being Chief Justice (Lawrence Friedman, January 15)

For some state judges, lobbying is part of the job description (January 16)

The PACER class action and the problem of court funding (February 14)

The risk of upending settled doctrinal expectations (Lawrence Friedman, March 3)

What should we expect when Justice Alito and Kagan testify before Congress this week? (March 3)

Tweeting judges: a cautionary tale (March 20)

The affirmation alternative: a religious case for atheist oaths (Ryan Groff, April 22)

On federal laws and state courthouses (April 30)

Why did France just outlaw legal analytics? (June 7)

“Offended observers” and public religious displays: the question of standing (Lawrence Friedman, June 22)

On the politics of judicial identity (July 7)

Judge Larsen on State Courts in a Federal System (August 21)

The most pointless judicial election ever? (August 27)

A dispiriting 230th birthday for the federal courts (September 24)

On terrible judicial optics (October 3)

The importance of commitment to judicial accountability in Massachusetts (Lawrence Friedman, October 7)

What is the right level of court system transparency? (November 26)

The costs of judicial interdependence, Part I (December 26)

Here is the best of 2017 and 2018.

Thanks for reading, and please visit us frequently in 2020!