NYT article reproduced here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawmakers-dial-pressure-alito-recuse-113433337.html

AP article: https://apnews.com/article/alito-flag-supreme-court-roberts-justice-senate-104ded51a089642a7a449b3d3234a3e6

Excellent that news relating to foreign law is being discussed to a certain extent on LI. Considering the similarities between our legal systems though, why don't we pay more attention to public law debates in the UK? (this is perhaps the third thread I have seen on LI about something to do with the U.S. Supreme Court.) Why not equal discussion on things like the November 2023 judgment declaring the Rwanda policy to be violation of human rights (which was reversed by the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024) and the debate surrounding whether Parliamentary Sovereignty is a rule of recognition, the illegal prorogation of Parliament in 2019 and the striking down of that by the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) in Miller no. 2, the outcome of Miller No. 1 (which was that the UK government couldn't trigger Article 5 TEU powers to commence the exit process from the EU by prerogative and that Parliament needed to be consulted on this), the debates surrounding whether the UK Supreme Court, during the presidency of The RT Hon. The Lord Reed of Allermuir, has become more conservative? Why is it felt by most that U.S. debates are of greater interest to us than British ones? Is it because of the fact that they have a codified constitution, increasing the relevancy of questions around theories of constitutional interpretation?

PS: I am all for Indian lawyers thinking about and being engaged in foreign debates to a certain extent, especially U.S. ones. But I think that there is a rich field of knowledge that is being left unexplored by focussing on the U.S. at the expense of the UK.