header-logo header-logo

18 November 2020 / Athelstane Aamodt
Issue: 7911 / Categories: Features , International justice , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

At sixes & sevens

32374
Athelstane Aamodt reflects on ‘originalist’ Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the US Supreme Court

The recent confirmation of the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States has aroused much controversy. Appointments to the Supreme Court always do, not least because of the great power that the Court possesses, ie it can strike down legislation as being unconstitutional. The view is that the appointment of Barrett gives the court a 6-3 bias in favour of ‘originalists’, judges who interpret the meaning of the US constitution as it would have been understood at the time it was promulgated. This point of view, which is conservative, tends to produce judgments that Republicans approve of, although that is not always the case.

The big fear of Democrats, who are largely pro-choice, is that the decision in the case of Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which established a woman’s right to abortion, will be overturned. Such is that fear that President-elect Joe Biden has said he would

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll