Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. In 2019-2021, he served as the Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, executive secretary of the department's Commission on Unalienable Rights, and senior adviser to the...
In his first term, President George W. Bush has had difficulty getting his nominees to the federal courts of appeal confirmed by the Senate. The Democrats have taken the almost unprecedented step of threatening filibusters to prevent floor votes on certain nominees. Has the judicial appointments process become the latest victim of bitter partisan politics? Or has the judiciary brought this state of affairs on itself by advancing a doctrine of judicial supremacy, leaving the executive and legislative branches no choice but to resort to political litmus tests for nominees? What does this situation bode for the next Supreme Court nomination? And what, if anything, should be done to reform the process?
On December 12, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States brought an end to thirty-six days of dramatic vote recounts and legal challenges in the state of Florida. The decision let stand the initial results of Florida's election, which gave the state's electoral votes, and thus the Presidency, to George W. Bush. What was the legal justification for the Supreme Court's decision? Should the Court have intervened in the first place? And what precedent did the Court create for future elections?
As required by the Constitution, the president of the United States is elected not by the national popular vote but by the vote of the Electoral College. In the Electoral College, each state receives as many votes as it has members of Congress. Because every state has two senators and is guaranteed at least one House member, votes of small states count more heavily than votes of large states. Has the Electoral College served the nation well? Or should it be abolished and replaced by a system in which every vote counts the same? Peter Robinson speaks with Jack Rakove and Tara Ross
What sustains the conservative agenda? What makes it distinctive and coherent? In a word, principle. By Peter Berkowitz.
Hoover Institution research fellow Peter Schweizer has a potential blockbuster of a new book hitting the shelves Oct. 6 entitled "Architects of Ruin: How Big Government liberals wrecked the global economy and how they will do it again if no one stops them."...
Hoover fellow Epstein discusses the Libertarian Chronicles, the IRS, and Obamacare on the John Batchelor Show
Richard Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member of its Property Rights, Freedom, and Prosperity Task Force, weighs in on the IRS scandal and the unraveling of Obamacare.
Richard Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, discusses recent revelations of IRS discrimination against conservative nonprofits and considers the scandal surrounding the Justice Department's monitoring of the Associated Press.
Richard Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, looks at the IRS's abuse of the permit power and how that abuse also applies to the FDA, the EPA, and local zoning ordinances.
Richard Epstein the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, considers the Supreme Court challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, its implications for civil rights, and the controversial statement made by Justice Scalia during oral arguments.
Hoover fellow Robert Zelnick, who coached David Frost for his storied broadcast bout with Richard Nixon, shares his glimpse of "the unleashed Nixon." By Caleb Daniloff.
Why Abraham Lincoln matters—even now. By Shelby Steele.
Don't thank Republicans, business leaders or the media for saving the U.S. . . .
A near quadrupling of the federal deficit in 2009 alone. The nationalization of the Detroit automakers...
This week, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell discusses why the glacial pace of deliberations and decisions in the Senate is a feature, not a bug.
“Once it was clear the president was going to try to turn us into a Western European country as rapidly as he could, about the only strategy you have left when your opposition has a forty-seat majority in the House. . . . We knew we couldn’t stop the agenda. But we thought we had a chance of creating a national debate about whether all of this excess was appropriate. And the key to having a debate, frankly and candidly, was to deny the president, if possible, the opportunity to have any of these things be considered bipartisan.” (37:41)
The Scheinman collection brings to life the story of how two friends, a white American and a black Kenyan, helped African democracy bloom. By Tom Shachtman.