—Alexander Hudson, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity [Editor’s note: This is one of our biweekly I-CONnect columns. For more information about our four columnists for 2020, please click here.] As the attention of many observers of law and politics is fixed on the impeachment process now underway in the United States
Citizenship Data Wars
–Bilyana Petkova, Assistant Professor, Maastricht University; Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center Hardline anti-immigration policies are the bread and butter of worrying nationalism trends in both Europe and the United States. Both United States President Donald Trump and Italy’s interior minister, Matteo Salvini, run their election campaigns on anti-immigration rhetoric. Both were ready to follow
When Court Criticism Threatens the Rule of Law: A Three-Part Test
—Brian Christopher Jones, Lecturer in Law, University of Dundee. Email: b.c.jones@dundee.ac.uk. Criticism of the courts, although essential to the operation of democracy, has recently been tested on a number of fronts, leading to a host of allegations that such criticism may violate the rule of law. But one of the major problems in relation to this
In Wake of Controversial Enactment Process of Trump’s Tax Bill, Israeli SC Offers a Novel Approach to Regulating Omnibus Legislation
—Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov, Assistant Professor, Bar Ilan University Faculty of Law A controversial tax reform is enacted in the middle of the night. It is enacted in a massive hundreds-of-pages omnibus bill, which is rammed through the legislative process in a highly accelerated pace. The legislators receive the final version of the bill in the very last
Trapped in the Age of Trump: the American Supreme Court and 21st Century Populism
—Or Bassok, University of Nottingham [Editor’s Note: This post is part of the joint I-CONnect/Verfassungsblog mini-symposium on populism and constitutional courts. An introduction to the symposium can be found here. The author thanks Shay Levi for his valuable comments.] The American Supreme Court is currently ill-equipped to confront populism. The Court’s deficiency is not because of
Comparative Law in the Age of Trump (I-CONnect Column)
—Aslı Bâli, UCLA School of Law [Editor’s note: This is one of our biweekly I-CONnect columns. Columns, while scholarly in accordance with the tone of the blog and about the same length as a normal blog post, are a bit more “op-ed” in nature than standard posts. For more information about our four columnists for 2017,
The Impact of a Trump Presidency for Constitutionalism and Human Rights in Latin America (I-CONnect Column)
—Javier Couso, Universidad Diego Portales [Editor’s note: This is one of our biweekly I-CONnect columns. Columns, while scholarly in accordance with the tone of the blog and about the same length as a normal blog post, are a bit more “op-ed” in nature than standard posts. For more information about our four columnists for 2017,
Where do Justice Ginsburg and Justice Hale—and Judicial Independence—Go from Here?
—Brian Christopher Jones, Liverpool Hope University Both of these influential and widely respected justices have recently tested the limits of judicial speech through provocative and ill-timed statements.[1] Back in July, Justice Ginsburg exclaimed, “I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president”, then called Trump a “faker”, and even suggested that she
Constitutional Ignorance and Democratic Decay: Breaking the Feedback Loop
—Tom Gerald Daly, Associate Director, Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law In September 2014 at the University of Texas, US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas warned of ‘constitutional ignorance’. Exhorting the audience to familiarise themselves with the text of the US Constitution, he stated: ‘I bet you more people have read the instructions on how to use
Do All Democracies Need Party Dissolution Mechanisms?
—Brian Christopher Jones, Liverpool Hope University Although it may appear harsh or severe, the ability of many democracies to dissolve political parties based on the (supposedly) “unconstitutional” or “anti-democratic” nature of their existence is an inherent constitutional feature of many states. Democracy, it appears, must at times protect itself from threat or collapse. Perhaps the most
