Critics of the liberal justices’ ethical lapses aren’t trying to make the case for reform—they’re trying to kill it.

A recent spat between a judge and Yale Law School forces us to consider whether the federal judiciary should continue to be a spoils system for the well connected.

As more and more judges engineer their own end-of-career successions, the rule of law is starting to warp in dangerous and unsustainable ways.

Proponents of the controversial proposal to add justices to the high court will take little solace from the group’s final draft report.

The draft report, while long on critiques of court-packing, failed to address the root of the high court’s predicament—the confirmation process itself.

Mike Pence wouldn’t agree to carry out John Eastman’s plan to overturn the election. Next time we might not be so fortunate.

In little-heralded decisions, the Roberts court has moved to entrench judicial supremacy and destroy the legislative branch.

They’ve responded to Trump’s makeover of the courts with legislative nonstarters and shortsighted proposals. But the party first needs to sell the public on its vision for a liberal judiciary.