Search for: "Williams v. Nixon" Results 61 - 80 of 279
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Oct 2020, 7:39 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Nixon was William Rehnquist, who recused because of his work in the Office of Legal Counsel, not because he was a Nixon appointee. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 12:25 pm by Scott R. Anderson
Chief Justice William Rehnquist articulated this view in his concurrence in Bush v. [read post]
9 Oct 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
For the Balkinization Symposium on  Alexander Keyssar, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 10:33 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Gilligan, and Haley Feuerman, The New Revolving Door Robert V. [read post]
7 Sep 2020, 10:04 am by Paul Rosenzweig, Vishnu Kannan
In short, President Trump has led a wrecking crew (aided and abetted by William Barr and Mitch McConnell) that has severely damaged American legal norms of behavior. [read post]
8 Aug 2020, 2:45 am by NCC Staff
On July 24, 1974, a unanimous Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 9:00 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
In 1970, (Republican) President Nixon signed Title X into law, which led to the creation of federally funded family-planning clinics across the country. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 3:49 pm by Stephen Wermiel
Nixon, ordering President Richard Nixon to turn over tape recordings and other materials to the U.S. [read post]
21 Jun 2020, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Although neither of President Trump’s appointees joined it, one of them—Justice Neil Gorsuch—wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 10:38 am by Jack Goldsmith, Ben Miller-Gootnick
And imagine that, at the same time, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (the executive officer next in line under the statute) declares himself acting president on the basis of a legal opinion from Attorney General William Barr proclaiming legislative succession to the presidency unconstitutional. [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 7:13 am by Kalvis Golde
At the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription required), Daniel Cotter looks to past precedent in U.S. v. [read post]