Search the archive.

This law-centric orientation is strikingly different from that of most Americans, despite popular claims about their litigiousness. Most individuals never even identify the civil legal problems they experience as "legal." Only a tiny minority will ever seek legal advice in response to a problem, and most are more likely to do nothing than to file a lawsuit. Decades of empirical scholarship have confirmed that despite the prevalence of civil legal problems in everyday life, there is remarkably little recourse to formal law. [FOOTNOTE BEGINS] DAVID M. ENGEL, THE MYTH OF THE LITIGIOUS SOCIETY: WHY WE DON'T SUE 3 (2016) (noting that "specious claims of a litigation explosion have been made so often that they have rooted themselves in the national psyche"). [FOOTNOTE ENDS]

Dr. Eric W. Orts-- Guardsmark Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics and Professor of Management at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, MA in Political Science from the New School for Social Research, LLM from Columbia Law School, JD from the University of Michigan School of Law, BA in Government from Oberlin College, “Foreign Affairs: Six Future Scenarios (and a Seventh)”, , 6/27/2018.

7. Fascist Nationalism. There is another possible future that the Foreign Affairs scenarios do not contemplate, and it’s a dark world in which Trump, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, and others construct regimes that are authoritarian and nationalist. Fascism is possible in the United States and elsewhere if big business can be seduced by promises of riches in return for the institutional keys to democracy. Perhaps Foreign Affairs editors are right to leave this dark world out, for it would be very dark: nationalist wars with risks of escalation into global nuclear conflict, further digital militarization (even Terminator-style scenarios of smart military robots), and unchecked climate disasters.

Michele L. Jawando—Vice President of Legal Progress for Center for American Progress; Sean Wright— policy analyst, Center for American Progress, “Why Courts Matter,” , 04/13/2015

No matter the issue—whether it’s marriage equality, voting rights, health care, or immigration—the U.S. federal courts play a vital role in the lives of all Americans. There are two types of courts: state and federal. The federal courts are those established to decide disagreements that concern the Constitution, congressional legislation, and certain state-based disputes. Although most Americans are familiar with the lifetime appointment of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, many are surprised to learn that more than 900 judges have lifetime appointments to serve on lower federal courts, where they hear many more cases than their counterparts on the Supreme Court. Each year, the Supreme Court reviews around 100 of the most significant cases out of the nearly 30 million cases resolved by state and federal courts. These courts hear the majority of cases and, most of the time, they have the final say. That is why, along with the Supreme Court’s justices, the judges who sit on the nation’s federal district and circuit courts are so important. At any given time, there are vacancies on U.S. federal courts that need to be filled. If they are not filled, federal caseloads get backlogged, and as a result, Americans’ access to justice is limited. As of March 9, 2015, there were 50 current vacancies on U.S. federal courts. These seats have been vacant for a total of 22,222 days, resulting in a backlog of 29,892 cases. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts has designated 23 of these pending vacancies as judicial emergencies, meaning that filling them is a critical task. As the Center for American Progress has noted, “in practical terms,” these are the judicial districts “where judges are overworked and where justice is being significantly delayed for the American public. The Constitution dictates that the president appoints federal judges while the Senate advises and consents on these appointments. The result is a delicate balance between the desires of the White House, deference to home-state senators, and the power of the party that controls the Senate. Recently, politics has played a big role in the pace at which judicial nominees are confirmed. In an attempt to slow President Barack Obama’s effect on the federal courts, Senate Republicans have obstructed the president’s judicial nominees at unprecedented levels by attempting to prevent or delay a vote through filibustering a record number of nominees and making them await confirmation for long periods of time. The reason many Senate Republicans have played politics with President Obama’s judicial nominees is because they know the dramatic impact the judiciary can have on policies, including marriage equality and reproductive choice. The fewer judges that President Obama appoints to fill federal judicial vacancies, the greater leverage the next president will have in deciding the make-up of these courts. Yet in the face of unprecedented obstruction, President Obama has made great strides to fill vacancies and to ensure that federal judges meaningfully reflect the dynamic diversity of the nation. A diverse federal bench improves the quality of justice and instills confidence that judges understand the real-world implications of their decisions. Americans have different backgrounds, as well as an assorted set of professional, educational, and life experiences. It is important that the federal courts reflect the diversity of the public they serve. As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor once wrote, “The dynamism of any diverse community depends not only on the diversity itself but on promoting a sense of belonging among those who formerly would have been considered and felt themselves outsiders.”Furthermore, scholars have found that judges often change their minds during the deliberative process. In one study, researchers concluded that having a woman on the panel affected “elements of both deliberation and bargaining—alternative perspectives, persuasive argument, and horse trading.” Not only do the federal courts play a vital role in preserving democracy, but who sits on the courts has an effect too.

Bell, Abraham-- Professor, Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law; Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; and Gideon Parchomovsky-- Robert G. Fuller, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School and Professor, Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law. 2014. “Reinventing Copyright and Patent.” Michigan Law Review 113 (2): 231–78. https://search-ebscohost-com.gonzaga.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,uid&db=lgs&AN=99133160&site=ehost-live.

Intellectual property systems all over the world are modeled on a one size-fits-all principle. Under current patent law, for instance, an invention that meets the patentability criteria is entitled to protection of the law for a specified period.1 Big inventions or small inventions, valuable inventions or worthless inventions—all receive the same scope of protection, and the same variety of legal remedies, for the same period of time. Essentially, all inventions are equal under the law. While one size fits all is easy to administer, it generates two kinds of problems for the patent system. First, the equality principle gives all creators access to the same remedies, even when those remedies create perverse incentives. Scholarly literature has focused on the phenomenon of “patent trolls”—patent holders who have no interest in marketing or manufacturing their inventions but simply wait for apparent breaches of the patent in order to sue.2 While scholars have characterized trolling as a problem of underproductive patents,3 we view it as a problem of incentives. Patents that are enforced by trolls could potentially be valuable to society, but the one-size fits-all system’s excessive litigation rewards incentivize trolls to hoard their patents for opportunistic litigation rather than license them for productive use. Specifically, by providing uniformly large remedies even for very small inventions, the judicial system allows patent trolls to reap more profit through infringement suits than through selling their inventions on the market. This is not intrinsically problematic, but the judicial system is not cost free. Society subsidizes judges, courtrooms, and enforcement measures while litigating parties bear only some of the costs themselves.4 In the case of patent trolls, these societal subsidies encourage parties to conduct their transactions in the courtroom when the optimal forum is actually private market transactions. In many other cases, partly because the costs of litigation are asymmetric and must be paid in part even by prevailing parties, the threat of these litigation costs can force parties into inefficient transactions.5

Judicial Shop “Discover Strategies To Make Court Run More Efficiently“, https://judicialshop.com/blogs/news/discover-strategies-to-make-court-run-more-efficiently, 2-8-2024,

Improving evidence management, increasing resources for conflict-free representation, and expanding ways to provide short and long-term relief for overburdened courts are crucial strategies for enhancing access to justice. These measures can help streamline legal proceedings and ensure that individuals have adequate support in navigating the court system. IMPROVED EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT Improved evidence management is critical for streamlining court processes. Digital evidence, with its complexity and volume, necessitates efficient handling to expedite case resolution. Smart court characteristics include ensuring fairness and efficiency of the judiciary, which can be achieved through improved evidence management strategies. This includes digitalization of evidence storage and retrieval systems to enhance accessibility and streamline the presentation of evidence in civil cases. Moreover, modernized evidence management aligns with promoting procedural fairness within the American legal system by ensuring that all parties have equal access to relevant information. Implementing user-friendly electronic filing systems coupled with robust data quality measures further enhances transparency and ensures that evidence is accurately handled throughout legal proceedings. INCREASED RESOURCES FOR CONFLICT-FREE REPRESENTATION Civil courts require additional resources to provide conflict-free representation, ensuring all parties have access to sound legal guidance. Boosting funding for legal aid and pro bono programs is essential to diminish the imbalance in representation and ensure fair outcomes for all individuals involved in legal proceedings. Studies have shown that access to counsel directly impacts the fairness of trials, making it imperative to allocate more resources towards this critical aspect of justice. Furthermore, expanding support for conflict-free representation can significantly enhance the public's trust in the legal system, as individuals are provided with equitable opportunities for adequate representation. EXPANSION OF WAYS TO PROVIDE SHORT AND LONG-TERM RELIEF FOR OVERBURDENED COURTS To alleviate the burden on overburdened courts, a strategic plan by the Federal Judiciary focuses on expanding ways to offer both short and long-term relief. This involves innovative policies developed due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to keep courts open and ensure equitable access to court-related services. Embracing technology has been pivotal for courts, not only in staying operational but also in advancing participation rates and facilitating efficient dispute resolution. These strategies are crucial steps toward achieving more effective court operations, relieving congestion, and improving overall fairness in judicial processes. Moreover, enhancing access to justice initiatives - such as improved evidence management and increased resources for conflict-free representation – play an essential role in this expansion effort.

[Oren, 7-21-24, Politico Magazine, “15 Experts Predict What Biden’s Dropout Means for the 2024 Election”, , Accessed 7-21-24, AMH]

The Republican Party’s transformation into one focused on workers and their families, skeptical of Wall Street and free trade, and committed to rebuilding American industry has received more attention, but the Democratic Party’s agenda has been in flux as well. The Biden administration’s embrace of industrial policy, for instance, remains deeply unpopular with the economic advisers of the Obama era like Larry Summers and Jason Furman. Even within the administration, long-running battles have raged between free traders like Janet Yellen who sought closer ties with China and economic realists like Katherine Tai who recognized globalization’s failures. Are Democrats prepared to take seriously the importance of immigration enforcement to tight labor markets that raise wages at the low end? Is Big Tech the keystone in their coalition or do they agree with FTC Chair Lina Khan’s indictment of it?

[Christian Paz, Vox senior politics reporter, 7-21-24, Vox, “Does Kamala Harris give Democrats a better chance to win?,” https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/361750/biden-drop-out-harris-endorse-polls-against-trump-democrats-dnc, accessed: 7-21-24, ES]

What history tells us: Harris critics also have plenty to point to when criticizing her electoral history. Her toughest race was her first race, for California attorney general, when she was the worst-performing statewide Democratic candidate on the ballot, winning her seat by about 1 percentage point.Read that again. She nearly lost to a Republican in California.

[Christian Paz, Vox senior politics reporter, 7-21-24, Vox, “Does Kamala Harris give Democrats a better chance to win?,” https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/361750/biden-drop-out-harris-endorse-polls-against-trump-democrats-dnc, accessed: 7-21-24, ES]

Reporters who have been covering her tenure point out that she seems most at home when she’s having more roundtable-style conversations, not necessarily in one-on-one interviews or while giving stump speeches.

[Christian Paz, Vox senior politics reporter, 7-21-24, Vox, “Does Kamala Harris give Democrats a better chance to win?,” https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/361750/biden-drop-out-harris-endorse-polls-against-trump-democrats-dnc, accessed: 7-21-24, ES]

That’s one edge the governors and senators who have been talked about as potential alternatives to Biden have: They wouldn’t carry the same baggage from the Biden administration. Harris will likely be seen as tied to Biden’s legacy, which stands as another reason to look elsewhere.

[Christian Paz, Vox senior politics reporter, 7-21-24, Vox, “Does Kamala Harris give Democrats a better chance to win?,” https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/361750/biden-drop-out-harris-endorse-polls-against-trump-democrats-dnc, accessed: 7-21-24, ES]

Critics of the KHive — as the online superfans of the vice president call themselves — and the VP argue that Harris is still really unpopular with the American public. They argue that the polls don’t actually show that much of an advantage for Harris in battleground states or with the popular vote; they point to her failed 2019 presidential campaign and her tepid vice presidential tenure as proof she’s not a particularly good candidate or politician and would likely run an uneven campaign.

[Liam, principal at Bracewell LLP and a former National Republican Senatorial Committee aide, 7-21-24, Politico Magazine, “15 Experts Predict What Biden’s Dropout Means for the 2024 Election”, , Accessed 7-21-24, AMH]

After three weeks of gazing into the political abyss, Democrats have cycled through the stages of grief, accepted the inherent risk of a presidential shake-up, and euphorically embraced a candidate they would have feared leading their ticket just a month ago. The swap leaves them with four months to climb out of the deep hole Biden dug over the past three and a half years.

[Josh, 7-21-24, Politico Magazine, “15 Experts Predict What Biden’s Dropout Means for the 2024 Election”, , Accessed 7-21-24, AMH]

I am honestly shocked at how the 2024 Democratic Party coup of President Joe Biden went down. The president has clearly been physically and mentally impaired for years now, as some of us repeatedly pointed out when it was less fashionable to do so. The much-discussed CNN presidential debate revealed precisely no new information for anyone paying even the slightest attention. And in a presidential election that will once again come down to the Rust Belt — and the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular — it is bizarre for Democrats to swap out the man who talks ceaselessly about his hardscrabble Scranton upbringing for a left-wing Californian with more baggage than an Acela train.

[Helen, Politico Magazine, 7-21-24, “15 Experts Predict What Biden’s Dropout Means for the 2024 Election”, , Accessed 7-21-24, AMH]

‘It doesn’t matter whom the Democrats pick. They can’t stop what’s coming.’

[Christian Paz, Vox senior politics reporter, 7-21-24, Vox, “Does Kamala Harris give Democrats a better chance to win?,” https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/361750/biden-drop-out-harris-endorse-polls-against-trump-democrats-dnc, accessed: 7-21-24, ES]

What the data says: The major problem in comparing these Harris figures to Biden’s actual standing against Trump is that Biden’s numbers factor in every negative thing that he and his campaign have endured so far. Biden backers would point to the fact that opinions of Harris could still change for the worse as her theoretical campaign becomes not so theoretical anymore, and that her performing about as evenly as Biden against Trump is not that great of a sign when there is more uncertainty about how Harris would even campaign.

[Sara & Molly, 7-21-24, Forbes, “Here’s How Kamala Harris Performs In Polls Against Trump – As Biden Drops Out And Endorses Harris”, , accessed: 7-21-24, AngH]

A flurry of polls conducted in the wake of the June 27 presidential debate showed Harris performing roughly the same as Biden against Trump (who has been leading the president by a slim margin for months), and more recent polls after the attempted assassination of Trump show similar trends.

[Emily Brooks, ‘The Hill’ staff writer, Caroline Vakil, ‘The Hill’ staff writer, Julia Manchester, ‘The Hill’ staff writer, 7-21-24, “Republicans see opportunity in Harris presidential run after Biden exit,” https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4785145-republicans-opportunity-harris-biden, 7-21-24, EP]

John Ullyot, a Republican operative who was a senior adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign, said that both Biden and Harris are “very weak candidates.”

[Emily Brooks, ‘The Hill’ staff writer, Caroline Vakil, ‘The Hill’ staff writer, Julia Manchester, ‘The Hill’ staff writer, 7-21-24, “Republicans see opportunity in Harris presidential run after Biden exit,” https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4785145-republicans-opportunity-harris-biden, 7-21-24, EP]

But the overwhelming consensus among Republicans is that if they can’t go up against Biden, Harris is the most favorable of the other options.

[Curt, 7-21-24, Politico Magazine, “15 Experts Predict What Biden’s Dropout Means for the 2024 Election”, , Accessed 7-21-24, AMH]

Congratulations to the Democrats for couping an incumbent president. Donald Trump is now the de facto president. The only time, Grover Cleveland in 1892, that a former president has run in the general after leaving office: He won. Explosive powder has now been thrown into that mix. Anyone now sharing the stage with Trump will look much, much smaller.

[Joshua, 7-21-24, Politico Magazine, “15 Experts Predict What Biden’s Dropout Means for the 2024 Election”, , Accessed 7-21-24, AMH]

History offers no road map to the next three months. We’re driving off road. But we know a few things.

(Nicholas, Katie, 7-22-24, New York Times, “How Kamala Harris Will Try to Put Trump on Defense”, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/22/us/politics/kamala-harris-trump-presidential-election.html)

From the beginning of President Biden’s ill-fated re-election bid, Democrats struggled to frame the race as a choice between two radically different visions, rather than a referendum on Mr. Biden’s age and abilities.