Monday audio. Class begins tomorrow at 10:45. I will answer questions about the syllabus and course assignments in the first couple minutes of class. Please check the updated panel assignments. Panel # 2 is on tomorrow; sit on the far side of the room.
We finish Introduction. Why should the power of review rest with courts? What is "judicial supremacy" and does the power of judicial review entail that? What is "departmentalism?" What is the best way of understanding the role of different branches in constitutional interpretation? What is "judicial activism" and why should you never again use that phrase in this class?
Also, apropos of today's class: This essay, from a historian at SMU, discusses the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase. It tells the full story of the impeachment and trial; how the case has become precedent limiting impeachment to criminal activity rejecting the power to judges for bad or disagreeable decisions on the bench; and how we might reconsider that limited conception of impeachment. Note that in focusing on the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language of Art. II, the author ignores the "good behaviour" language of Art. III. Here is the list of the 14 impeached judges, 8 of whom have been removed.
We then move to Supreme Court, covering Structure. Consider how the Court's structure has evolved historically and the validity of proposals to alter it. Review the various proposals for changing the Court and think about whether they are valid and whether they are a good idea. Also, consider a proposal for Supreme Court panels in which three justices hear each case rather than the full Court. One correction--pp. 124-25 in Chemerinsky should be 725-28.
