Bush’s refusal to pardon the falsely accused aide looks even worse now.
Human Rights attorney Scott Horton debated Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Peter Berkowitz on human rights and the rules of warfare in a debate organized by the Pomona Student Union on Mar. 4 at 7 p.m. in Edmunds Ballroom. . . .
Contrasting positions on American exceptionalism go to the heart of what distinguishes the 2016 Republican presidential field from its Democratic counterpart.
Lessons from the Supreme Court, the Bush administration, and Hillary Clinton.
Due process protections for the accused in campus cases alleging sexual assault have been under attack for decades.
Raise the banner of individual liberty and govern under it.
In his efforts to refute Charles Cooke’s recent exposé of Jennifer Rubin, I was surprised to see David Frum, in passing, attack my Hoover colleague, legal scholar Peter Berkowitz (a “Sean Hannity–style character assassination of James Comey and Special Counsel Robert Mueller”), for suggesting, in a prescient October WSJ opinion column, that the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion may well be ethically compromised (in its zeal to go after those not accused of collusion)—in even greater fashion than was the Comey investigation of Hillary Clinton (in its absence of zeal to indict for clear violations of U.S. intelligence law).
In a June 4, 2010, Wall Street Journal column, republished in her new collection, “The Time of Our Lives,” Peggy Noonan tells the heartbreaking story of 28-year-old Detroit Tigers’ pitcher Armando Galarraga.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision upholding the Obama administration’s interpretation of a critical provision of the Affordable Care Act was the rare judicial action that helped both Democrats and Republicans, at least in the short run.
Not long ago, same-sex marriage was a cause advanced by a handful of activists. Now it’s the law of the land. How did that happen?
On July 5, FBI Director James Comey delivered a prepared statement summarizing the bureau’s yearlong investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her tenure as secretary of state.
To the chagrin of the vast majority of professors of constitutional law, President-elect Donald Trump has promised to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and throughout the federal judiciary who believe that the Constitution’s original meaning provides authoritative guidance in resolving cases and controversies.
The idea of a “constitutional conservatism” is back in the news. It came into vogue on the right in response to the pursuit by President Obama—after his victory in the 2008 presidential election and the Democrats’ sweep of both houses of Congress—of ambitious progressive policies.
Administrative law is the collection of rules governing the welter of government agencies -- ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration to the Securities and Exchange Commission -- that are neither legislatures nor courts but which make binding law.
Like an individual mixed up about his convictions, a nation perplexed about its principles is prone to self-inflicted wounds. Both are likely to wander aimlessly and choose friends poorly while falling for the blandishments of adversaries. They are prone to misjudge their interests and misconstrue justice. A nation perplexed about its principles exacerbates citizens’ muddle about their convictions.
Many in the United States worry about the erosion of democratic norms. Too few, however, exhibit concern for the steady deterioration over the last half century of the essential democratic norm of free speech.
Merrick Garland, a judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, long a pipeline to the Supreme Court, could be one of least controversial choices to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens, according to legal experts.