An Eight-Member Supreme Court, and More from CRS
A new report from the Congressional Research Service examines the implications of having only eight members on the Supreme Court following Justice Scalia’s death.
“This report provides an overview of the Supreme Court’s procedural rules and requirements when the Court is staffed with less than nine members. Included in this discussion is an overview of the Court’s quorum requirements, rehearing procedures, and vote count practices, with a focus on how the Court has traditionally responded to a change of composition during a term. The report concludes by highlighting over a dozen cases from the current term that could result in an evenly divided Supreme Court.”
See The Death of Justice Scalia: Procedural Issues Arising on an Eight-Member Supreme Court, February 25, 2016.
Other new and updated CRS reports that were published (but not publicly released) in the past week include the following.
DOD Releases Plan to Close GTMO, CRS Legal Sidebar, February 23, 2016
The United Kingdom and the European Union: Stay or Go?, CRS Insight, February 24, 2016
Court-Ordered Access to Smart Phones: In Brief, February 23, 2016
Health Care for Veterans: Suicide Prevention, updated February 23, 2016
Prescription Drug Abuse, February 23, 2016
Overview of Labor Enforcement Issues in Free Trade Agreements, updated February 22, 2016
Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA): History and Usage, February 25, 2016
U.S. Trade Deficit and the Impact of Changing Oil Prices, updated February 25, 2016
The 2015 National Security Strategy: Authorities, Changes, Issues for Congress, updated February 26, 2016
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy, updated February 22, 2016
Federal Court Declines to Bar the Resettlement of Syrian Refugees in Texas, CRS Legal Sidebar, February 26, 2016
Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Programs, updated February 26, 2016
Iran-North Korea-Syria Ballistic Missile and Nuclear Cooperation, updated February 26, 2016
“One thing became increasingly clear: AI doesn’t simply introduce a new category of risk. It changes the speed, scale, complexity, and interaction of risks that already exist.”
In an ideal world, we would not have state or federal climate intervention research bans. We would have researchers and institutions that would not shy away from revealing the good, the bad, and the ugly of these technologies and doing so responsibly.
“What excites me is that it’s very tempting to be very discouraged, and say, ‘Oh, we’ve got these archaic institutions that are calcified and you could never change them.’ But I think we’re in the middle of a technological revolution that will upend lots of things, and does provide a window.”
Ask people what worries them most right now, and they’ll say the cost of living and their livelihoods, not climate change. But those concerns are not separate.