Uploaded June 2022 | Updated September 2026, 1 day ago
In a new series from Vail Symposium, humanities scholar Clay Jenkinson gathers experts for a thoughtful, civil, rigorous and historically-grounded discussion on various controversial issues. The first topic? The Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court has become the focus of intense national conversation and debate. Usually regarded as the third and “forgotten” branch of the national government, the political struggle of recent years in America has been a flashpoint for political controversy: How many members should serve on the Court? Should they serve for life? Should they “stay within their lane,” “call balls and strikes,” or “legislate from the bench?” Is our method of selecting and confirming Supreme Court Justices rational? Does Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation bring the best individuals to the bench? Is it appropriate to use “litmus tests” in choosing prospective justices? What does the Court owe to judicial precedent? Is the Constitution a “living document” or an inerrant guide to our national life? Has the Court become too politicized in recent years, or are we just now scrutinizing it from this perspective? What reforms in the Court would make for a “more perfect union?
Join our moderator, humanities scholar Clay Jenkinson, and guest presenters--Yale University's Akhil Reed Amar and Cato Institute's Clark Neily--for a thoughtful, civil, rigorous, and historically grounded discussion of these questions and more as they examine the Supreme Court in American life.
In a new series from Vail Symposium, humanities scholar Clay Jenkinson gathers experts for a thoughtful, civil, rigorous and historically-grounded discussion on various controversial issues. The first topic? The Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court has become the focus of intense national conversation and debate. Usually regarded as the third and “forgotten” branch of the national government, the political struggle of recent years in America has been a flashpoint for political controversy: How many members should serve on the Court? Should they serve for life? Should they “stay within their lane,” “call balls and strikes,” or “legislate from the bench?” Is our method of selecting and confirming Supreme Court Justices rational? Does Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation bring the best individuals to the bench? Is it appropriate to use “litmus tests” in choosing prospective justices? What does the Court owe to judicial precedent? Is the Constitution a “living document” or an inerrant guide to our national life? Has the Court become too politicized in recent years, or are we just now scrutinizing it from this perspective? What reforms in the Court would make for a “more perfect union?
Join our moderator, humanities scholar Clay Jenkinson, and guest presenters--Yale University's Akhil Reed Amar and Cato Institute's Clark Neily--for a thoughtful, civil, rigorous, and historically grounded discussion of these questions and more as they examine the Supreme Court in American life.
