Claim Details

View detailed information about this claim and its related sources.

Back to Claims

Claim Information

Complete details about this extracted claim.

Claim Text
See Keith E. Whittington, Partisanship, Norms, and Federal Judicial Appointments, 16 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 521, 524–33 (2018); cf. Emma Green, How the Federalist Society Won, New Yorker (July 24, 2022), https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/how-the-federalist-society-won [https://perma.cc/B5CP-Q3Q9] (highlighting the power of the Federalist Society in securing clerkships and judgeships for conservative lawyers).
Simplified Text
Keith E Whittington wrote Partisanship Norms and Federal Judicial Appointments in 16 Geo J L & Pub Pol’y 521 524–33 in 2018 Emma Green wrote How the Federalist Society Won in New Yorker July 24 2022
Confidence Score
1.000
Claim Maker
The author
Context Type
Legal Article
Context Details
{
    "dates": [
        null,
        "July 24, 2022"
    ],
    "pages": [
        "521",
        null
    ],
    "years": [
        "2018",
        "2022"
    ],
    "titles": [
        "Partisanship, Norms, and Federal Judicial Appointments",
        "How the Federalist Society Won"
    ],
    "authors": [
        "Keith E. Whittington",
        "Emma Green"
    ],
    "volumes": [
        "16"
    ],
    "journals": [
        "Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol\u2019y",
        "New Yorker"
    ],
    "page_ranges": [
        "524-533",
        null
    ]
}
Subject Tags
UUID
a1164052-7262-4575-8082-0a1d89face84
Vector Index
✗ No vector
Created
February 15, 2026 at 3:30 PM (2 months ago)
Last Updated
February 15, 2026 at 3:30 PM (2 months ago)

Original Sources for this Claim (1)

All source submissions that originally contained this claim.

Screenshot of https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/confusion-and-clarity-in-the-case-for-supreme-court-reform/
166 claims 🔥
2 months ago
https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/confusion-and-clarity-in-the-case-for-supreme-court-reform/

This article analyzes the arguments for and against Supreme Court reform, focusing on formal and substantive disagreements. It examines historical precedents for reform and argues that the current movement stems from concerns about the Court's recent decisions.

Similar Claims (0)

Other claims identified as semantically similar to this one.

No similar claims found

This claim appears to be unique in the system.