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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll