Proposed Judicial Rules Warped by Sheldon Whitehouse’s Pressure

War, said Clausewitz, is politics by other means. The Judicial Conference of the United States is not supposed to be politics by other means. Yet, new amendments proposed by its Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules are an open effort to advance through rulemaking a partisan and ideological agenda that could not pass Congress. The proposed rules would add onerous and potentially unconstitutional new disclosure requirements for amicus curiae briefs filed in federal court. The Advisory Committee admits that it wrote the rules in response to legislation proposed by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senate’s leading conspiracy theorist and a vocal populist critic of rule-of-law courts. The Advisory Committee shouldn’t be in the business of helping reckless partisans impugn the integrity of the legal system.

The Rulemaking System

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

War, said Clausewitz, is politics by other means. The Judicial Conference of the United States is not supposed to be politics by other means. Yet, new amendments proposed by its Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules are an open effort to advance through rulemaking a partisan and ideological agenda that could not pass Congress. The proposed rules would add onerous and potentially unconstitutional new disclosure requirements for amicus curiae briefs filed in federal court. The Advisory Committee admits that it wrote the rules in response to legislation proposed by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senate’s leading conspiracy theorist and a vocal populist critic of rule-of-law courts. The Advisory Committee shouldn’t be in the business of helping reckless partisans impugn the integrity of the legal system.

The Rulemaking System