The Congressional Research Service continues to devote substantial attention to the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, even if the U.S. Senate remains unwilling or unable to act on the nomination. This week CRS issued a new report presenting an annotated tabulation of hundreds of decisions written by Judge Garland.
“To assist Members and committees of Congress and their staff in their ongoing research into Judge Garland’s approach to the law, this report identifies and briefly summarizes each of the more than 350 cases in which Judge Garland has authored a majority, concurring, or dissenting opinion. Arguably, these written opinions provide the greatest insight into Judge Garland’s judicial approach, as a judge’s vote in a case or decision to join an opinion authored by a colleague may be based upon a number of considerations and may not necessarily represent full agreement with a joined opinion.”
See Majority, Concurring, and Dissenting Opinions Authored by Judge Merrick Garland, May 2, 2016. (The larger implications of Judge Garland’s opinions were analyzed in a separate CRS report that was issued last week.)
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
China’s Natural Gas: Uncertainty for Markets, May 2, 2016
Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress, updated May 3, 2016
Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: An Overview, updated May 4, 2016
Green Infrastructure and Issues in Managing Urban Stormwater, updated May 2, 2016
DHS Budget v. DHS Appropriations: Fact Sheet, May 2, 2016
FAS experts believe government shutdowns are science shutdowns: costly and ineffective standoffs that stifle scientific pursuits and do harm.
We always knew that healthy children do better in school. Now we have rigorous empirical research to back it up.
Truly open science requires that the public is not only able to access the products of research, but the knowledge embedded within.
Over the last year we’ve devoted considerable effort to understanding wildfire in the context of U.S. federal policy. Here’s what we learned.