Support independent, student-run journalism.

Your support helps give staff members from all backgrounds the opportunity to conduct meaningful reporting on important issues at Stanford. All contributions are tax-deductible.

Robes to riches: Money and judicial elections

This case requires that they balance their own notions of judicial integrity and impartiality against the on-the-ground reality of the judicial elections, which they have never experienced. How they evaluate the compelling interest at stake in Florida’s law may do more than tell us about the Court’s vision of the First Amendment; the opinion might also reveal something about the Court’s vision of itself, and about the judicial role in an increasingly political world.

Good decision, bad law

Integrity Staffing Solutions may be a bad decision, but it is “bad” as a matter of results, not as a matter of jurisprudence: the Court did exactly as it was required to do in applying the law and precedent and articulating a rule of decision. We wouldn’t want it to do more. What we do want, and what has become increasingly impossible in the recent partisan gridlock, is for the law to change.