Judge Garland’s Jurisprudence, and More from CRS
A new report from the Congressional Research Service examines Judge Merrick Garland’s approach to various domains of the law in an attempt to assess what the impact would be if his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court were ever confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
“The report focuses on those areas of law where Justice Scalia can be seen to have influenced the High Court’s approach to particular issues, or served as a fifth and deciding vote on the Court, with a view toward how Judge Garland might approach that same issue if he were to be confirmed.”
The report addresses Judge Garland’s treatment of 14 topical areas of law, including civil rights, environmental law, and freedom of the press. See Judge Merrick Garland: His Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court, April 27, 2016.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
The First Responder Network (FirstNet) and Next-Generation Communications for Public Safety: Issues for Congress, updated April 28, 2016
Dominican Republic: Update on Citizenship and Humanitarian Issues, CRS Insight, April 27, 2016
Oman: Reform, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated April 26, 2016
Private Flood Insurance in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), CRS Insight, April 25, 2016
Clean Power Plan: Legal Background and Pending Litigation in West Virginia v. EPA, April 27, 2016
Corporate Expatriation, Inversions, and Mergers: Tax Issues, updated April 27, 2016
The Buy American Act–Preferences for “Domestic” Supplies: In Brief, updated April 26, 2016
Zika Response Funding: In Brief, updated April 28, 2016
Traditional and Roth Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs): A Primer, updated April 27, 2016
U.S. Manufacturing in International Perspective, updated April 26, 2016
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Lessons Learned and Issues for Congress, April 27, 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.