In the latest edition of “How Appealing Weekly Roundup,” curated by Howard Bashman, several thought-provoking essays and op-eds from around the web are highlighted, offering a panoramic view of America’s appellate litigation landscape and beyond.

Ronald Brownstein’s piece in Bloomberg Opinion, “America’s Two-Tier Racial System Is Making a Comeback,” paints a stark picture of the current judicial trajectory under the Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority. Brownstein argues that recent decisions are solidifying a bifurcated society in the United States, echoing concerns about the erosion of racial equality and justice.

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, John Baer of The Patriot-News delves into the dynamics of Supreme Court retention votes in his essay, “Who wins Pa.’s yes/no Supreme Court retention votes, and why.” Baer’s analysis provides readers with a closer look at the factors influencing judicial retention in a key battleground state, shedding light on the broader implications for judicial accountability and political influence.

In a more critical tone, Madiba K. Dennie’s essay for Balls and Strikes, “Trump Judges Keep Pulling Desperate, Sweaty Stunts In the Hopes That He Offers Them Promotions,” critiques certain judges within the Trump era for their audacious judicial maneuvers. Dennie specifically points to Judge Ryan Nelson, exploring the controversial notion that the law may overly empower former President Donald Trump.

Jared Jacang Maher and David Sirota contribute to the discourse with a poignant piece in Slate about a former Supreme Court Justice’s attempts to reshape his controversial legacy. Their essay, “This Former Supreme Court Justice Is Trying to Salvage His Legacy. It’s Too Late,” reflects on the enduring impact of landmark judicial decisions and the challenging path to altering public and historical perception.

Barton Swaim, writing for The Wall Street Journal, offers a perspective on political strategy in his op-ed, “All the President’s Enemies; Trump’s misguided indictments won’t help him, as the Founders foresaw.” Swaim analyzes recent political maneuvers in the context of historical foresight from America’s Founders, questioning the efficacy and motivations behind such actions.

Lastly, Jeff Jacoby’s call to “end presidential pardons” in The Boston Globe argues that what was once a mechanism for correcting judicial wrongs has become a tool of injustice. Jacoby’s essay prompts a reevaluation of presidential powers in contemporary political and legal frameworks.

Each piece, rich with insights and critique, encourages a deeper understanding of the currents shaping America’s legal and societal contours. For more detailed discussions and additional essays, readers are encouraged to visit How Appealing’s blog. This roundup not only highlights critical legal discourse but also prompts reflection on the broader implications of these judicial and political developments.