| At RealClear’s American Civics portal last week, Judge Michael Warren argues that the leak of the draft majority opinion in the pending Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization is a threat to American self-government. The leak violates the principle of the separation of powers, opening the Supreme Court up to the possibility of using powers the Constitution reserves for other branches of government due to political pressure. Warren contends that decisions of the court “must not be influenced by facts not in the record, arguments never made, or a desire to change or ignore the law.” Through the “decision-making process,” judges “must be shielded from public exposure until the final opinion is published.” He concludes that the rule of law must triumph over the rule of passion and sentiment: “If law is determined by mob, it is no law at all.” Daniel J. Mahoney remembers the work of the Catholic political philosopher Peter Lawler, who exhibited “a high-minded prudence and moderation that navigated humanely (and successfully) between many hostile extremes: scientism and fundamentalism, tribalism and cosmopolitanism, nostalgia for the ‘good old days’ and an unmanly deference to the Zeitgeist, Lockean individualism and the false zeal for civil theology.” Mahoney writes that for Lawler, the American Founders “affirmed what Tocqueville called ‘liberty under God and the law,” a project Lawler contributed to preserving and strengthening through his “dialectical defense and articulation of the American proposition.” At Heterodox Academy, law professors Andrew Koppelman and Ilya Shapiro write how, though they disagree quite strenuously with each other’s views of the Constitution – they both write that the other is “horribly wrong” – they nevertheless agree on the foundational concepts of debate and civility. Cancel culture needs to be set aside, they argue, in favor of engaging with opposing views in a respectful yet rigorous way: “There’s no substitute for having your enemies right there in front of you, making their arguments. Explaining why they’re wrong about so much isn’t light work, nor is letting them point out flaws in your own positions. It’s a skill, and like any other skill, you get better at it by practicing.” Original Posts Michael Warren, RealClearAmericanCivics In the News Glenn Ellmers, RealClearBooks Howard Husock, Washington Examiner Deb Fauver, New Hampshire Bulletin No Labels, RealClearPolicy Ron Meier, Constituting America Ryan Streeter, City Journal Richard Reinsch, Public Discourse Ron Meier, Constituting America Angus McCllelan, Law & Liberty Business Wire John Rooney, RealClearHistory Andrew Koppelman & Ilya Shapiro, Heterodox Academy Kelsey Dallas, Deseret News Kathryn Turner, Bill of Rights Institute Emily Reynolds, Research Digest Daniel J. Mahoney & Brian Anderson, 10 Blocks Professor Daniel J. Mahoney joins Brian Anderson to discuss history’s great statesmen, the classical and Christian underpinnings... Clark Neily, National Constitution Center In this Friday session, Clark Neily, senior vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, joins National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a discussion about the #SecondAmendment... Bill of Rights Institute Should students be required to salute the flag? In 1943, the Supreme Court heard a case after Jehovah's Witnesses in West Virginia... Hannah McCarthy & Nick Capodice, Civics 101 On May 2nd, 2022, Politico published a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion. A leak of this kind is unprecedented, but it is... Carl Cannon's Great American Stories It's Friday, May 20, 2022, the day of the week when I pass along a quotation intended to be uplifting ... Good morning, it's Friday, May 6, 2022, the day of the week when I pass along a quotation intended to ... In case you slept late the big story of the day was a scoop by Politico that the Supreme Court is ... | 