News and Notes of Interest to Those Who Are Interested
(updated 3 February 2013)

From time to time, the world lays before us items for which we did not plan.  When this happens, or when things of potential interest to those enrolled in this class arise, I will note them on this page.  Check it regularly for grins and insights.

-----------------

The Fisher v. Texas affirmative action case has gotten a good deal of attention, but there is another major civil rights case before the Court this term.  In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court will consider the applicability -- and perhaps the constitutionality -- of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  Although a mainstay of federal law and prosecution since its passage, members of the Court called it, and its continuing constitutionality into serious question in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (2009).  On this point, see the op-ed piece in today's New York Times by Lincoln Caplan (3 February 2013)

-----------------

In honor of Justice Antonin Scalia's appearance on campus this week, I thought it might be useful to post this exchange, started by a review of Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, his book with Bryan Garner.  The review is by Richard Posner, a highly regarded (and Reagan appointee) and self-avowedly conservative judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Garner's response is here, and Scalia's is here.  Posner's repost is here.  All of these pieces appeared in The New Republic.  (29 January 2013)

-----------------

More Sotomayor: see Emily Bazelon's review in The New York Times.  Oath, part II.  The first time around, the new Chief Justice and the new President botched it, but this time they'll have a number of opportunities to get it right... at least the oath part.  Read Adam Liptak's take on the relations between two Harvard Law grads, brought together by history and custom.  (New York Times, 20 January 2013)

Indeed, not only did V.P. Biden (with Justice Sotomayor presiding) get it right, but the Chief Justice and the President nailed it in the formal swearing in ceremony in the Blue Room.  (MSNBC, 20 January

-----------------

The second segment of NPR's Nina Totenburg's interview with Justice Sotomayor aired this morning, and the Court heard oral arguments in XXX, raising important questions about what constitutes effective counsel, but the big story of the day was Justice Thomas speaking from the bench for the first time in almost 7 years.  His comment was a joke, partly inaudible, and the major question coming out of it was "what did he say and/or mean?"  See Adam Liptak's take in the New York Times. (15 January 2013)

-----------------

Justice Sonia Sotomayor has a new autobiography, My Wonderful World,  coming out, so watch for interviews with her -- like this on NPR's Morning Edition, and this piece by Adam Liptak in The New York Times -- in the coming days and weeks.  (14 January 2013)

-----------------

Chief Justice Roberts and the state of the judiciary.  (New York Times, 31 December 2012)

-----------------

After the Newtown shootings, questions about federal and state gun laws naturally arose and some of them have constitutional dimensions given Heller and McDonald.  This prompted this piece by Adam Liptak in The New York Times.  (posted 26 December 2012)

-----------------

Robert Bork is dead.  See this piece from the New York Times from 19 December.  Though Bork as a noun is no more, bork as a verb is certain to live on. (posted 26 December 2012)

-----------------

An interesting piece by Adam Liptak on a forthcoming book (The Behavior of Federal Judges) discussing partisanship of appointing president and direction of judges' decisions.  New York Times, 27 November 2012.

-----------------

It used to be unusual for Supreme Court Justices to speak publicly, outside of court.  Not so much anymore.  Below are links to the traveling Nino and Steve Show, and Scalia's been out and about hawking his most recent book.   Samuel Alito isn't in the same company as these two jurists, yet, but he recently appeared at a Federalist Society dinner and made some comments on Citizens United.  See coverage of the comments here and here and here, as response to them here and here and here. (20 November 2012)

-----------------

Because it would be boring if the healthcare case was just let lie until the Court did something with it (though Adam Liptak had a piece in the Times about the intellectual combat on display among the justices during the oral arguments), the President, Congress, and commentators got involved in a kerfuffle over whether the current administration rejects Marbury v. Madison (1803) and the concept of judicial review. 

On Monday, President Obama said he thought the Court would uphold Obamacare, and jumbled his explanation as to why, both significantly overstating its margin of passage and seemingly calling into question the appropriateness of a judicial decision striking it down.  Then, not surprisingly, opponents of the act -- many of whom have a renewed interest in judicial power and review -- weighed in.  This Wall Street Journal editorial is good example.  Not to be outdone, Judge Jerry Smith and a panel of federal judges from the Fifth Circuit Court, out of the blue asked for clarification of the administration's position.  This prompted both criticism for excessive politicization from, among other, Jeffery Toobin of CNN, and a response from Attorney General Holder noting that, yes, the administration does believe in judicial review.  (Holder's letter can be found here.)  WHEW!!!

No word yet on the administration's views on Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

-----------------

Day Three is Done, and the Case is Submitted:  NPR posted the transcript and audio for both the severability and medicaid arguments, and here is the coverage the rapidly exhausting New York Times gave to the arguments and a sample of the public response to them.

NPR (thanks to Vanessa Tapia for the heads up) has a general page devoted to its coverage.

-----------------

Day Two is Done:  NPR posted the transcript and recording of day to of oral arguments before the Court.  Liptak, in the New York Times, discusses the importance of how the issue is framed. Lyle Denniston's take on oral arguments suggests that Kennedy looks to be the pivotal vote.

In the New York Times, you can find Liptak's coverage of Tuesday's oral arguments, as well as a discussion of potential partisan splits amongst the Justices (now 4 Democratic appointees, and 5 Republican ones) and musings about a "what if" the mandate is struck world.  NPR's coverage of Tuesday's arguments is found here and here, and the Medicaid dimensions of Wednesday's oral arguments are discussed here.

-----------------

Day One is Done: The Court has engaged the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, as we say in the 'hood).  Below find pieces from the New York Times and NPR (where you can hear the Justices) discussion the cases and the first day's arguments, which centered on whether the Court has jurisdiction over the cases.

First, note Caplan and Boffey's recounting of the flow of the arguments over the three days of orals, and Adam Liptak's coverage of the arguments on the tax question here and here.  Note, too, this piece on the federalism implications of the cases, and the issue of "severability," which will be argued 28 March.

Also check out NPR's coverage of the first day of arguments on All Things Considered and and Morning Edition previews of the "individual mandate" provision here.

A recording of Monday's oral argument is here.

Note, too, the wide array of interest group involvement here in this piece on amicus briefs from All Things Considered  in health care cases, and in this piece from the New York Times.

There are also interesting pieces about how the lawyers prepped for oral arguments, and good pieces on Professor Randy Barnett, one of the architects of the arguments against the ACA, and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing the case for the administration.

Finally, if you are interested in the quirky and cool, note that people had to camp out to get seats in the hearing room, and that, once there, could not text, tweat, call, or photograph the moments.

-----------------

As we roll into the six hours of oral argument on the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare), there will be a lot coverage of the Court's treatment of the myriad of issues it raises.  This piece from NPR's "Morning Edition," Thursday, 22 March, might help you sort out the general flow of the arguments.  Also note the centrality of one Roscoe Filburn, as noted by Adam Liptak in The New York Times.  Liptak also has a take on the centrality of this case to the unfolding Chief Justiceship of John Roberts.

I will add more pieces here as we march to orals.

-----------------

Thanks to Eryn Norton for being the first to tell me, and here's some big news from the Court: it has granted cert. to the UT-undergrad school affirmative action case.  Liptak has this in the New York Times, and this is what MSNBC has posted. For students of recusals -- yeah, Schnell, I'm looking at you -- note that Kagan will not participate.  (21 February 2012)

-----------------

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld, 2-1, a District Court decision striking down California's ban, passed by public referendum, on gay marriage.  Adam Liptak has this piece in the 21 February New York Times discussing the possibly less-than-earth-shaking ramifications of the decision.

-----------------

As I noted in class on Wednesday, Justice Breyer was robbed on the island of Nevis in the West Indies.  Sunday's New York Times (19 February 2012) has this story about the security provided to Justices.

-----------------

Much ado has been made about employer provision, when that employer is church or church-related, of family planning services under the new health care law.  Note these pieces from the New York Times on the initial articulation of the Obama Administration's policy, and then its modification in light of criticisms.  Linda Greenhouse's take is here.

All of this relates to religious liberty under the First Amendment, so ponder.

-----------------

Note this gloss on the GPS surveillance case by NYU professor Barry Friedman in the 29 January 2012 edition of the New York Times.

-----------------

Ms. Moore posted this on the Blackboard page, but here's a link to the 27 January New York Times story on the Cranston, Rhode Island, school prayer controversy.  Ponder this in light of the cases we are reading, especially in light of the more recent cases, and of the piece linked below on prayer in schools generally.

-----------------

Tonight, 24 January, is the annual State of the Union Address.  While primarily a presidential/congressional show, members of the Court do attend... sometimes with unanticipated consequences and moments of drama.  Check out Liptak's piece in today's New York Times.

-----------------

I would like to call your attention to three pieces germane to our discussion of civil liberties issues.  First, this piece by Adam J. White in The Weekly Standard on Justice Alito's approach to First Amendment expression issues should resonate, at least to a degree, with our discussion of Plato's implied critique of Mill's argument in On Liberty.  Second, note this piece by Monica Youn challenging the "conventional wisdom" that the Roberts Court is a strong defender of free speech, and a follow-up piece by Lee Epstein and Jeff Segal.   Finally, note this piece about the persistence of state-sponsored prayer in public schools.

-----------------

The future of affirmative action, and perhaps racial and ethnic diversity, in education is hanging by a thread, and in large measure because of the Bush appointees.  See Adam Liptak's story from 15 October 2012 in The New York Times.

-----------------

Note this NYTimes editorial on the paucity of women in leadership positions in the law.  (8 October 2012)

-----------------

As the Supreme Court's 2011 Term Starts, former Justice John Paul Stevens is hawking his new book, Five Chiefs.  Here's Adam Liptak's take on it.  (New York Times, 4 October 2011)

-----------------

The Obama Administration (see this NYT piece) and the State litigants both ask the Supreme Court to undertake prompt review of the issues raised by the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., Obamacare).  (New York Times, 30 September 2011)

-----------------

After wrestling with "CyberDuck" -- proof positive that change is not always improvement -- I think I'll be able to post links again on this page.  As a test, let me note the following judicial happenings vis the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., Obamacare).  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the "individual mandate" in June, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck that provision in August.  Last week (8 September), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out cases brought by the State of Virginia and Liberty University.

There are a number of constitutional questions here, but the primary question of significance is the scope of power of the federal government under Article I of the Constitution.

Now... let's see if CyberDuck works.

-----------------

Lots of people have streaks.  Later today when I venture out to run, it will mark my 2571st consecutive day of doing so.  On Tuesday a week (a southernism), Justice Thomas will celebrate a streak of his own: five consecutive years without uttering a word during oral arguments (1826 consecutive days, which is misleading because the Court doesn't hear oral arguments every day).  This automatically puts him at the bottom of the list of "funniest justices during oral arguments," a fact of which he is likely proud.  Adam Liptak has this recognition in the New York Times, 13 February 2011. 

Justice Thomas (and Justice Scalia) have recently been in the news because of their appearances before politically conservative organizations.  (Also, in Thomas' case, because of the political work of his wife, Virginia.)  Professor Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, has a useful piece in the Times' op-ed section putting the issue of justices and their political activities into a larger historical context.

UPDATE: Common Cause has asked for clarification of what it sees as inconsistencies in Justice Thomas' expenses at the 2008 retreat.  New York Times, 15 February 2011.

-----------------

Lots of people have streaks.  Later today, I will venture out for my 2571st consecutive day of running.  On Tuesday a week (a southernism), Justice Thomas will mark a milestone in a streak recognition in the New York Times, 13 Febraury 2011.   

-----------------

Some, but not much, thawing in the judicial confirmation process was reported in the New York Times today, 9 February.

-----------------

The Times of New York of 8 February 2011 has two pieces of general interest to those generally interested in things Court and constitutional.  First, Adam Liptak discusses some on-going questions arising out of the Citizens United (2010) decision, in particular how it effects media corporations.  The other piece is an op-ed piece by Professor Lawrence Tribe arguing that "nonpartisan majority of justices will do their constitutional duty" and uphold the health care law if and when it makes its way to the Court.   

-----------------

Virginia Thomas, wife of Justice Thomas, is back in the news.  She has opened a consulting shop called "Liberty Consulting," and she styles it as a way to "leverage her 30 years of experience as a Washington "insider" to assist non-establishment "outsiders" who share her belief in our core founding principles and values."  The New York Times ran a piece on 5 February about this, and a companion editorial that brought Justices Thomas and Scalia into its scope.

for related information, click here

-----------------

For a bit of "additional background" on Korematsu , take a look at this editorial in the New York Times, 4 February 2011.

-----------------

Justice Sotomayor gave a talk at the Law School at the University of Chicago that was picked up by Adam Liptak of the New York Times, 1 February 2011.  Some boilerplate, but a nugget or two as well.

-----------------

Florida Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson, in a case joined by 26 states, held the recently passed health care law (“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” to its supporters, "Obamacare" to its detractors) violated the powers afforded the federal government under the Constitutiona, particular its power to regulate "commerce among the states."  The decision, one of four so far on the program, is discussed in this piece by Kevin Sacks in the New York Times. (1 February 2011) 

UPDATE: Virginia's Attorney General, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, is seeking expedited review of Virginia's suit against the healthcare act by the Supreme Court.  The tendency of the Court is to let these things percolate in the lower courts to better develop the issues and arguments that surround the cases, but it is not unprecedented for it to expedite review (see Bush v. Gore, 2000).  I wouldn't hold your breath, though. (4 February 2011)

Click here for early postings on this issue.

-----------------

After the broohaha last year over President Obama's criticism of the Citizens United (2010) decision, there was some question about who from the Court would show up at the State of the Union.  The NYTimes had this coverage, the LATimes this, and TMZ found traces of Madonna in RBG. (26 January)

-----------------

Justice Thomas (who along with Justice Scalia) earlier defended himself for going to (and speaking to) a political group's retreat, yesterday acknowledged a mistake in not disclosing his wife's jobs in his annual financial disclosure statements.  (New York Times, 25 January)

for related information, click here

-----------------

-----------------

I heard this piece on NPR's "Morning Edition" the other day -- between pleas for money -- and then today someone calling themselves "scotusninc" emailed me the link, and this one to a piece on the study in the Washington Post.  It concerns humor on the Supreme Court (and has a cool laugh flowchart).  Remember this when you find yourself laughing in class.  We're not so much laughing as modeling "high brow legal contemplation and discussion. (21 January 2011)

UPDATE:  The New York Times has now caught up to the funny Justices story.  (25 January '11)

-----------------

One of the consequences of Justices getting "out and about," especially in circles that can be colored political, is that they invite charges of bias.  This is the case in a Common Cause request to the Justice Department to investigate potential "conflicts of interest" in Justices Scalia and Thomas' appearances at a conservative group's "political retreat."  Check out the story by Eric Lichtblau  in the New York Times, 20 January 2011.

-----------------

On 9 January 2011, the Sunday after the Constitution was read aloud in the House of Representatives, the New York Times published a piece by Jeff Rosen giving his take on Justice Scalia's originalism and what ramifications would follow were it to be the prevailing interpretive approach of the Court.  The Times published responses to this piece on 16 January.

Also, and thanks to Rachael Morgan for calling this to my attention, Fortune magazine ran this piece on Chief Justice Roberts in its 3 January issue.

-----------------

Adam Liptak found an "icky" appeal before the Supreme Court at present.  At issue is whether one can be forced to be kept on a "sex offenders registry" if the offense for which you were convicted is no longer an offense... in fact, was found to be unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas (2003)!  New York Times, 11 January 2011.

-----------------

Linda Greenhouse's departure from the Supreme Court beat at the New York Times was an occasion for sadness -- only a handful of journalists write about the Court with her clarity and insight -- but also joy: liberated from the beat, she went off to new adventures, and it allowed Adam Liptak to bring a bit of a different style and focus to the Times' coverage of the Court and things legal.  That said, Greenhouse continues to write pieces and blogs for the Times.  The break from course management has allowed me to catch up a bit on back reading (and thin out my email inbox) and let me call these Greenhouse pieces to your attention:  "Justice Unbound," 2 December; "Thank the Courts" (War on Terror cases), 10 November 2010; "Sotomayor's Last Laugh," (unflattering letter vis her nomination), 4 November 2010; "Making Congress All It Can Be," 4 October 2010; "Roberts Court, Version 4.0," 2 October 2010; "Who Stands for Standing?" 23 September 2010; "An Invisible Chief Justice," 9 September 2010; "Nine Justices and Ten Commandments," 26 August 2010; "Past, Present, and Future Justice," 1 July 2010; "Is the Kennedy Court Over?" 15 July 2010.

-----------------

As the calendar year comes to a close, note that the Chief Justice's annual report on the judiciary is just around the corner.  Linda Greenhouse's musings on this, printed in the 21 October 2010 issue of the New York Times, are especially timely now.  Note, as well, this editorial from the New York Times, 14 December 2010.

postscript:  Chief Justice Roberts did, in fact, ask the Senate to step up judicial confirmations as reported by Adam Liptak in the 1 January 2011 edition of the New York Times.  Roberts' full message to Congress is on the SCOTUS site.

-----------------

Adam Liptak has been running a periodic series of non-case specific articles in the New York Times under the general heading "The Roberts Court."  Among these pieces are the following: "Justices Offer Receptive Ear to Business Interests," 19 December 2010; "Court Chooses Guardians for Orphaned Arguments," 13 December;  "Justices Are Long on Words but Short on Guidance," 17 November 2010; "Specialists' Help at Court Can Come at a Cost," 9 October; "Polarization of Clerks" and "Ivy Nature" of Clerks, 6 September 2010 ; "Roberts Court Most Conservative in Decades" with graphic, 24 July 2001.

They are well-done and deserve your close attentions.

-----------------

Yesterday was not the greatest of judicial days for President Obama, as the "individual mandate" was struck down as beyond Congress's power to regulate commerce or tax and spend by a federal district court judge in Virginia.  However, this is the only decision of three to go against the healthcare plan.  The Tuesday, 14 December issue of the New York Times covered the story well, and has Kevin Sack's excellent primer on the constitutional doctrines aswirling here that should make anyone in Con Law -- or, hell, Intro to American Gov't as well -- proud of the "useful knowledge" they amassed this semester.  Finally, for you lawyer wannabes, take this glimpse of the Assistant AG in charge of this litigation.  (And you think FINALS are tough.)  15 December 2010.

Addendum:  Interesting piece by Jason Mazzone in the New York Times, 17 December 2010, and letters to the editor of the Times, 22 December.

See, too, Dahlia Lithwick's piece on the case in Slate, 13 December.  Also, John Schwartz's piece in the 18 December edition of the Times.

-----------------

He's retired, but he's not living in retirement.  John Paul Stevens got some ink at the New York Times, then opened the week on CBS's 60 Minutes, and then published this review essay in The New York Review of Books.  A pretty active ninety year old.  Note, too, this interview on NPR from last October, 2010... on the occasion of the opening of the Court's first term in 35 years without JPS in robes.  (Thanks to intrepid JPS watcher TheHarden for this.)

-----------------

On 19 May 2010, President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elana Kagan to fill the position being vacated by Justice Stevens' retirement.  Just before the announcement, the Times ran this piece about a documentary on post-Bork confirmation politics.

As everyone and their cousin digs through Elana Kagan's background, lots of interesting (and some not so interesting) stuff will pop up.  For now, note these items from the reportorial staff of the New York Times:  the significance of her relationship with Justice Thurgood Marshall, her positions on speech, executive power (also here, but note that John Yoo -- one of the leading exponents of the "unitary executive" theory is leery of her), and abortion, her hiring decisions and position on military recruitment when Dean of Harvard Law, and a thesis she wrote as a graduate student at Oxford.  There is also a piece on her relevance to the coming 2010 congressional elections.

We also know that she got a B- in Torts her first semester in law school.  (Hope springs eternal for the bright and hard working student!)

Much has been written about Kagan's capacity to appease and influence others.  It merits noting that a new justice has a great deal to learn about the processes and patterns of the Court, in addition to jumping into the rip-tide that is its business.  That said, note the pieces by Carter and Liptak.

What we have come to know as "confirmation politics as usual" will color the period through the Senate's vote on her, with members of the "out" party questioning whether she is in "the judicial mainstream," but note that many liberals are less than satisfied with the Kagan choice.

Many have noted the fact that, if Kagan is confirmed, the Court will have no Protestant justices for the first time in its history.  It will also be the first time four sitting justices will have grown up in New York City and the first time three women have sat together at its bench.  On the sex front, note this interesting piece by Lisa Belkin in the New York Times Magazine, 23 May 2010, on women, careers, and children.

She is also the first nominee who, in my reflections, has written critically of the all-to-common vacuousness of confirmation hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

-----------------

Apparently over the dissent of Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court has decided to lock its front doors to the public.  (New York Times, 4 May 2010)

-----------------

Okay, I've been getting crap (largely from Kentucky from someone who is likely now buying all the JPS undergarments s/he can) for not putting up a shrine to John Paul Stevens on the occasion of his impending departure from the Court.  That said, I don't come to bury Stevens... or to praise him.  I come simply to point out a few retrospectives on his career and a good piece on potential replacements by the always interesting and often irreverent Dahlia Lithwick and Emily Bazelon in Slate.  13 April 2010.

For a general take, see Liptak in the New York Times.

For a sympathetic take, see Lithwick and West in Slate.

For a less sympathetic take, see Driver in The New Republic.

-----------------

The State of the Union... and dissention.  Speaking at the University of Alabama, Chief Justice Roberts tossed in his two cents about the State of the Union dis of the decision in Citizens United last week.  Note Jeffrey Rosen's take on all of this in The New Republic.

On a serious note, Yale is preserving the Supremes... which is a good thing.  18 March 2010.

-----------------

Is there anything cooler than a Jeffrey Toobin interview with JPS?  I don't think so.  Thanks to all points midwest for the tip on this piece from the New Yorker.  15 March 2010

-----------------

Jeff Rosen, of GW Law School and The New Republic, has this interesting piece about Chief Justice Roberts and the decisional posture of the current Court in the 2 March 2010 issue of TNR.  Of course, Rosen's analysis, right or wrong would be moot if it was true that JGR was on the verge of resigning his seat on the Court because of health reasons.  He isn't.  HOW that story circulated is a picture of the insipidness made possible by the internet.  Also note these stories at "above the law" and NPR.

-----------------

Students and friends of SMU heard Justice Thomas speak in the Fall of 2009.  Visitors to oral arguments have not heard him speak in four years.  See Tony Mauro's piece in The National Law Journal, 22 February 2010.

-----------------

Stuff on John Paul Stevens by his biggest fan, law-review-to-be personnel at U Kentucky, of interest to all.  (Justice Stevens, if you are reading this, drop me an email and I'll see if I can hook you guys up.)  25 February.

-----------------

Tom Goldstein says JPS yes, RBG no... and hello Justice Elena Kagan.  SCOTUSBLOG, 23 February 2010.  (Thanks Law Review Editor Alicia Harden)

-----------------

Tony Mauro has an interesting piece on possible Supreme Court retirements after this term, including a more searching discussion of Justice Ginsburg's situation.  Law.com, 16 February 2010.  (Thanks to Erica Adams, who apparently is killing time to avoid working on her thesis.)

-----------------

The first significant Patriot Act case to make it to the Supremes raises First Amendment issues.  See the New York Times, 11 February 2010.

-----------------

A Twenty-First century Clarence Gideon?  If so, one who stayed at it after he was released from a ten-year prison sentence.  Check out Adam Liptak's "Sidebar" from the Tuesday New York Times, 9 November.

-----------------

Maybe two vacancies on the Supreme Court in the near future?  That's what ABC's ARIANE de VOGUE
 reported on 4 February 2010.  Note, too, this interesting speculation on a possible "dark-horse" candidate from The Daily Beast.

-----------------

More on the Citizens United decision, this time from Justice Clarence Thomas.  See Adam Liptak's piece in the New York Times, 4 February 2010, and Tony Mauro's at Legal Times on the same day.

-----------------

SCOTUSBLOG is sponsoring a "legal academic" version of Black History Month.  Check it out.  (1 February 2010)
Thanks to Erica Adams for bringing this to my attention.  Next time you see her, remind me that she owes me a steak.

-----------------

In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama took the unusual step of criticizing the Supremes with a number of the justices in attendance.  In addition to the novelty of the criticism in the presence of the justices -- mildly reminiscent of Lincoln's rebuke of Dred Scott in his inaugural address after being given the oath of office by Chief Justice Taney, one of Dred Scott's principal authors -- he seemed to take an extreme (though previously voiced) interpretation of the decision that was noted by the New York Times.  In another forum, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor also obliquely criticized the Citizens United decision.  In The New Republic, Jeff Rosen offers this take on the matter, and a piece on CNN (follow the Toobin link as well) gives another perspective.  (28 January 2010)  Adam Liptak, in the 29 January edition of the New York Times, adds this somewhat more historical perspective.  (30 January 2010)

-----------------

Even though he's said nothing directly on the subject, stories are starting to circulate that JPS is in the process of leaving bits and pieces of a farewell address throughout his dissents this term.  See Adam Liptak on this in the 26 January 2010 New York Times.

-----------------

More on money in politics ... as folks begin to think about what, if anything, the Citizens United decision will have on the larger political system.  David Kirkpatrick in the Sunday, 24 September, New York Times.  Kilpatrick has a piece on James Bopp Jr., the man behind the litigation of Hillary: The Movie, in the 25 January issue of the Times, while another piece on an anticipated boom in political ads is elsewhere in the same paper.

-----------------

The Citizens United decision is causing all sorts of buzz, and you might want to attend to it.  First, there is the decision itself, in particular the pointed exchange between John Paul Stevens and his fellow justices... in particular the Chief Justice who went to the trouble of writing a concurrence largely addressing JPS's critique of the decision, both as to scope and content.  See Dahlia Lithwick and Adam Liptak on this.  Second, there is the reaction from some corporations who have now called on Congress to adopt public financing for all House and Senate elections.  Keep your eye on this ball, as it will continue to bounce for quite a while.  23 January 2010.

-----------------

Adam Liptak has a great sidebar on the Supreme Court and its ability to predict what the future may hold in the 19 Janurary edition of the New York Times.  His discussion begins with its decisions to ban YouTube and broadcast coverage of the trial proceedings of the "same-sex marriage" trial, and goes on to muse about the prescience of the justices in other cases.

-----------------

Shades of the New Deal?  One of the things that has lurked in the background of the ambitious legislative agenda pursued by the Obama administration is the Supreme Court.  Largely populated by politically conservative presidents over the past 40 years, the current court is skeptical of federal power and protective of property rights.  Now there is word that Wall Street, through its lobbying arm, the "Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association," is contemplating a constitutional challenge to any policy that taxes the profits of large banks.  See Eric Dash's take on this in the New York Times, 18 January 2010.

-----------------

Gay marriage, the law, and California's Proposition 8 are all subjects of contention, and today in a federal district court in San Francisco they will come into judicial contest.  These pieces in the New York Times and The New Yorker help to set the field.  NPR's take on day one is here.  (11 January 2010)  A review of the first day of the trial can be found in the 12 January New York Times.

-----------------

The buzz is that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C. is imminent.  That could be based on links or simply the fact that the case -- the last of the October 2008 Term and Justice Sotomayor's first as a member of the Supremes -- was reargued on 9 September, after having been initially argued on 24 March 2009, and it's about time.  Regardless, note this piece by David Kirkpatrick in today's New York Times on the consequences of the decision -- and others that preceded it -- for the coming mid-term elections. (9 January 2010)

-----------------

I just finished Biskupic's biography of Justice Scalia (American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia), and it is a good quick read with substantial insight on his background prior to the Court years and the way it -- and his Catholicism -- interacts with his jurisprudence.  Off the top, my only strong criticism is that she does not explore the genesis of his version of "textualism/originalism."  She glosses over his court of appeals days, so it is not clear if he developed and acted on it there or if he when to the D.C. Circuit with it in tow.  Jeff Rosen's take on the volume is in the Sunday New York Times, 3 January.

And, while you are obsessing on all things Scalia, you might as well take a look at this interview with him.  It's mostly about music -- he prefers opera to the symphony, live -- but it's actually mostly about Scalia and bright lines don't section off the various "parts" of the Justice.  Thanks to Harold Stanley for left-handedly calling my attention to the interview. (revised, 7 January)

-----------------

What's so cool about Sonya Sotomayor's new job?  Check out Lauren Collins' piece in the New Yorker (6 January '10)

-----------------

A new year always involves the death of the old one.  Speaking of death, the death penalty, which came roaring back with a vengence after Gregg v. Georgia (1976) may be on life support.  Yesterday (4 Jan.) NPR's Morning Edition reported that fewer  prosecutors sought it in 2009, and today Adam Liptak reports in the New York Times that the American Law Institute has dropped capital punishment from its "Modern Penal Code." (5 January 2010)  Thanks to "friend of the page 'Rica Adams for pointing this out.

-----------------

With the first of the year comes the Chief Justice's annual report on the judiciary.  Adam Liptak's take on it is here.  (1 January 2010)

-----------------

Some really cool stuff today.  First, substantive.  POLARIZATION AMONG CLERKS... not just on the Court, but in the thereafter, too.  Adam Liptak has it in the New York Times.  Liptak picks up on a study, recently abridged in Greenbag, by Nelson, Rishikof, Messinger, and Jo.   Also from Greenbag, and cool in that nerd-on-a-stick sense, is the newest foray of Greenbag into kitschy memorabilia.  This time it is "Supreme Court Sluggers trading cards."  The first pitch in this series is Chief Justice John Roberts.  (22 December 2009)

-----------------

Adam Liptak on turducken, privacy rights, and governmental employment at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  An appeal to the Supreme Court is pending.  New York Times, 8 December 2009.

-----------------

It is tradition at the Court for a new justice's maiden opinion to be unanimous, and this sorta happened with Sotomayor's first opinion for the Court.  However, Justice Thomas concurred in part and wrote a blunt and somewhat snarky opinion.  See Adam Liptak's piece on this in the New York Times, 9 December.

-----------------

Adam Liptak has two pieces in the New York Times today (24 November) that examine seemingly strange things: the political right and left meeting on some questions of criminal law, and the consequences of ambiguity in constitutional standards when it comes to executing Adkins v. Virginia (2002) and those who are often deemed "mentally retarded."

-----------------

Joan Biskupic has a new book on Justice Scalia, and you can hear her talk about it on NPR's "All Things Considered," 12 November 2009.

-----------------

A few notes of note.  First, Justice Kennedy and editing his interview with a high school newspaper.  Second, the New York Times editorializes against the denial of a judicial hearing for a Canadian citizen mistakenly subjected to extraordinary rendition.  Finally, as I mentioned yesterday, Justice O'Connor's husband John died yesterday.

On other matters, check out FANTASY SCOTUS and musings on baseball and the justices. (12 November)

-----------------

Adam Liptak grabs a great exchange between Justices Scalia and Breyer on the question of "original intent" and Brown v. Board.  See the piece in the New York Times.  (10 November)

-----------------

As we ready ourselves to ponder discrimination on factors other than race and sex, ponder this op-ed piece by Adam Cohen on age discrimination in the New York Times (7 November 2009)

-----------------

In a case involving strange bedfellows, gay marriage goes to court.  See Adam Liptak's initial take on the matter in New York Times. (27 October)

-----------------

There are now more Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court than ever before.  Samuel Alito is a Catholic Justice, and he doesn't have problems with this, but he does have a problem with those who have a problem with it.  See this piece in the Washington Post. (22 October '09)

-----------------

McNews (USA Today) on JPS.  Mostly derivative from C-Span "Supreme Court Week" interview, but still... one place, one time.  (20 October 2009)

-----------------

Adam Liptak on Sotomayor's bench style and O'Connor's thoughts on the current Court.  New York Times, 10 October.

-----------------

Last one for today, because I really do need to start grading, but an interesting "Diane Rehm Show" on the current term of the Supreme Court... and the current Supreme Court.  8 October 2009.

-----------------

Note Slate's Dahlia Lithwick's take on yesterday's oral argument in the "Cross - War Memorial" case, Salazar v. Buono.

-----------------

Yesterday in class, we discussed Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) which dealt, in part, with Congress's response to City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980).  In the course of our discussion, I noted that Congress can overturn statutory (as opposed to constitutional decisions of the Court).  A contemporary example of such an effort is in legislation to reverse the Court's interpretation of age discrimination in employment in last term's Gross v. F.B.L. Financial Services (2009).  Note this piece by Steven Greenhouse in The New York Times, 7 October 2009.

-----------------

Sandra Day O'Connor expresses dismay that her rulings are being "dismantled" by the Roberts Court at a panel at the William and Mary law school.  (7 October 2009)

-----------------

The 2009-10 Term of the Court begins on first Monday in October, and this is that.  Check out the "opening bell" pieces in MSNBC here and here, this in the Washington Post, and under the NYTimes and NPR links above for Term overviews.  This editorial in the New York Times states the nearly obvious: Sotomayor is new, but Kennedy is key. (5 October)

-----------------

The Sunday before the first Monday in October is known as "Red Mass" in Washington, D.C.  A tradition dating from the Thirteenth Century, it is a Catholic mass celebrated for those working in law and government.  This year, as noted by Tony Mauro, six of the sitting justices are Catholic... the most in the history of the Court. (4 October 2009)

-----------------

Potter's papers are nearly out... but Davey's... well well well down the road.  See Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times, 2 October.

-----------------

More from Adam Liptak of the New York Times on the shrinking docket of the U.S. Supreme Court. (29 September '09)

-----------------

I thought that Professor Watson was the only person to celebrate "Constitution Day," but apparently not.  C-SPAN, warming to the coming of Supreme Court Week ("Eight Days a Supreme Court," remastered), has an hour-long interview with former Justice David Souter.  The subject?  Constitutional interpretation.  Take a look while they have the clip up.  (20 September '09)

-----------------

Tony Mauro notes that new stamps featuring Justices Story, Brandeis, Frankfurter, and Brennan will go on sale on 22 September 2009.  These are first-class stamps, but they are not of the "forever" variety.  What does that say about the nature of constitutional interpretation?  (19 September '09)

-----------------

Kremlinologists used to study pictures of May Day parades in the Soviet Union to try to figure out who was in and who was out of the leadership.  Much the same thing is happening with Justice Stevens, sometimes leading to inexact, misleading, and downright wrong stories.  Note Tony Mauro of Legal Times on this.  (17 September 2009)

-----------------

Justice Antonin Scalia has a well-known fondness for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but his favorite "legal movie" is My Cousin Vinny, and he says of Marisa Tomei, who was a star of the film, "God, she's a killer."  I don't think he meant the executable kind.  (17 September 2009)

-----------------

C-SPAN will host "Supreme Court Week" from Monday, 4 October, through Monday, 12 October.  While not quite "Shark Week," it is eight days long and should be quite interesting.  It will include historical information as well as interviews with current and former justices.  Its homepage is here, and you can get a flavor of some of it from this piece in The Washington Post.  (12 September)

-----------------

Sonya Sotomayor is now fully vested as a Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Here are pix from the Court's website, and a piece from the New York Times about the investiture ceremony.  (9 September)  Also, to celebrate -- I think this was the night before, given she had work to do the day after -- she kicked up her heels and belted out a couple of songs.  Video here.  (10 September)

-----------------

First it was the Hermit Bachelor Justice from New Hampshire.  Might it now be the Shuffleboard Champion of his retirement community?  Adam Liptak muses on the fact that J.P. Stevens has hired just one clerk for the 2010 Term of the Court.  New York Times, 3 September.

-----------------

Former student Josh Espinosa called this to my attention.  The hermit bachelor judge from New Hampshire is no longer from Ware.  He's moved, and he has phones.    I think the numbers are unlisted.  New York Times,  4 August.

-----------------

In today's New York Times, Adam Liptak has a review of James MacGregor Burns' new book on the Supreme Court.  As you think about the history and role of the institution, you might want to ponder it. (26 July 2009)

-----------------

Benjamin Button had a curious case, but perhaps Lloyd Gaines' was even stranger.  Note David Stout's piece from the 11 July 2009 New York Times.

-----------------

Justice Ginsburg granted and gave an amazingly frank interview on women and the Court to Emily Bazelon for an up-coming piece in the New York Times Magazine, 12 July.  You can see it here.

-----------------

An interesting op-ed from the NYTimes on the relationship between judicial greatness and judicial temperament.  (11 June '09)

-----------------

Okay, so it is Judge Sonya Sotomayer.  (Thanks to the students who have contacted me to congratulate me for predicting her when Souter stepped down.  Even Jeanne Dixon got 'em right, sometimes.)  There will be much poking and prodding of her life and record, but here are some early musings from Adam Liptak in the New York Times.  To get a sense of what her opponents are talking up and about, check out Sean Hannity on FoxNews.  A guide to some of her posture on some "hot button issues" can be found here.  (28 May '09) 

-----------------

One may ask, where is Weare?  And why should I care?  Well, let me tell you my friends, because Justice David Souter lives there.  New York Times, 4 May '09.

 

-----------------

So, Justice Souter is leaving upon the confirmation of his successor.  There will be a ton of coverage of this, but note for starters these pieices from the New York Times ("Souter’s Exit to Give Obama First Opening," "Wider World of Choices to Fill Souter’s Vacancy," "Washington Prepares for Fight Over Any Nominee." "Obama Has Chance to Select Justice With Varied Résumé ," "The Stealth Justice." NPR also has an oodle of pieces on this topic.  For a representative few, note "Impact Of Souter Retirement Examined" and "Battle Looms Over Choosing Souter's Successor." (2 May '09)

-----------------

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, celebrating her 15 years on the Court, speaks publically on a broad range of topics including gender discrimination and the use of "foreign law" in U.S. court opinions.  (12 April, New York Times)

-----------------

As you sit around pondering the perfect gift to say "thanks a lot... it really was a hell of a class" to your old professor, you might be interested that perfection lies in Supreme Court Justice bobbleheads.  The most recent are Justices Brandeis and Souter... with the later new to the world today.  (1 April '09, with a bow of thanks in the direction of Kentucky)

-----------------

Sure she made a cryptic reference to a retirement on the Court coming "soon," but Ruth Bader Ginsburg spilled some inside beans about life on the current court as well in her pre-dinner talk at New England Law School in Boston on March 13, 2009.  (25 March '09)

-----------------

Sandra Day O'Connor has been busy, appearing on the The Daily Show (part one, part two) and now in an interview in the New York Times.  The object of her newfound public persona?  Ourcourts.org. (24 March '09)

-----------------

A long-time FOJPS informs me from Kentucky that the 88er has been in the news again, this time with concerns about Justices taking their oath of office at the White House.   From the same source comes news that Justice Alito got John Lennon into a majority opinion in a potentially significant First Amendment expression case last week.  Imagine!  (2 March)

-----------------

She's back, and she's as questiony as ever. (24 February)

-----------------

The coolness of Chief Justice Marshall is apparent even to octogenarians.  Note this piece on Tony Mauro's blog from 20 February noted to me by a Kentucky bluebird.  (21 February)

-----------------

Chief Justice Roberts touted "prior judicial experience" as a good thing for Supreme Court Justices, and it has stirred up a bit of a tempest.  See Adam Liptak's piece in the 17 February NYTimes.
 

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) is one of the decisions that the "non-judicially-stocked" Warren Court that was Roberts' implicit target, and its current status has been speculated upon of late.  The NYTimes'  Adam Cohen suggests that the recent assault on the "exclusionary rule" of Mapp may not be driven by judicial modesty and moderation of the sort that the Chief Justice touted.   (16 February 2009)

-----------------

From a junkie in Kentucky comes news of a testy Scalia and -- as noted on the discussion page by Ms. Krishnaswami -- Dahlia Lithwick's thoughts on Obama and the needs of the Court.  (4 February 2009)

-----------------

Adam Liptak has a nice piece in the New York Times on shifts in the ideological balance on the Supreme Court over the past 40 years, and the potential -- and limits -- for an Obama nominee.  (1 February 2009)

-----------------

Politically conservative presidents since Richard Nixon have been trying to shift the Supreme Court's treatment of a variety of constitutional issues.  They have had occasional successes, but often stunning failures.  One area where they seem to have established a beachhead for a full assault on Warren Court decisions is in criminal procedure. This Adam Liptak piece from the New York Times discusses the recent decision in Herring v. U.S. (2009)* and treats the question of the continuing viability of a Warren Court criminal law landmark, Mapp v. Ohio (1961) . (31 January 2009)

-----------------

Interesting stuff from Tony Mauro at Legal Times on the visit of then President-Elect Obama and VP-Elect Biden to the Supreme Court (complete with pictures).  (24 January)

-----------------

They fixed it. The New York Times and NPR "All Things Considered"  and "Morning Edition."  The Colbert Report also got on the story. (22 January) 

-----------------

There was a bit of a snafu with the Presidential Oath yesterday, as two rookies showed their nerves.  Adam Liptak has this take on it, while MSNBC's Pete Williams reports this.  Biden's oath went a bit more smoothly. (21 January)

-----------------

Two interesting pieces from the New York Times as the inauguration draws near.  First, Linda Greenhouse muses on the sometimes overlapping paths taken by Chief Justice Roberts and President-Elect Obama.  Second, Adam Liptak considers the constitutional oath that Roberts will administer to Obama.

-----------------

President-Elect Obama has chosen Elena Kagan, Dean of Harvard Law School, to be his Solicitor General.  See the stories in the NYTimes, MSNBC, and Washington Post.

-----------------

As many ponder who President Obama will nominate to the federal bench, his administration has other decisions of moment relating to legal/constitutional issues.  One, as noted by Adam Liptak of the New York Times (3 January), concerns positions to be taken in cases before the Supreme Court in which the administration is a party.  Included among these are some politically salient issues, not the least of which is the Ali al-Mari case.  Another question is who will help formulate and argue the Obama administration's positions before the Supreme Court.

-----------------

In the "news lull" before the inauguration, NPR's Nina Totenberg muses on possible opportunities for President Obama to make appointments to the Supreme Court on Morning Edition, 2 January 2009.

-----------------

From someone, somewhere in Kentucky, this by Tony Mauro on the reargument of Muller v. Oregon (1908).

-----------------

Clerking or influencing?  Social science looks at the role of clerks... and Adam Liptak of the New York Times notices.

-----------------

Obama is safe from the Court... for now.

-----------------

From somewhere in Kentucky comes notice of odd noises in the Supreme Court last week during oral arguments in the Title IX sex discrimination case.  Also, it merits note that a bobblehead of interest to our class seems to be out there in general, as well as up for bid on eBay.

-----------------

Ms. Alicia Harden of Lexington, Kentucky, says she doesn't want to be a local celebrity on this webpage.  However, I don't care.  Anyone -- and keep this in mind as you leave SMU and go off into the world -- who sends me cool info relevant to new generations of students will get noted on this page and have that info posted.  Like this piece, from one Ms. Alicia Harden, on Nixon and Burger conversing about obscenity.

-----------------

Ms. Alicia Harden of Lexington, Kentucky, is blog scanning betwixt and between prepping for her finals, so there will be a lot of good stuff hereabouts for the next week to ten days.  For example: who is swearing in V.P. Biden?  Muller and the Brandeis brief are 100!  Who gets the most laughs at the Supreme Court?  Is Scalia making up fake swear-word substitutes?  Stay tuned for more: Ms. Harden is easily distracted.

-----------------

This note from Tony Mauro at Legal Times is odd because Justices Ginsburg and Souter really don't look very much alike... unless you've been badly abusing substances, and that is not a really good idea in general but especially before you argue a case before the Supreme Court.  (Again, thanks to Ms. Alicia Harden of Lexington, Kentucky.)

-----------------

An interesting piece by Justin Jouvenal on Salon.com dealing with potential Obama appointments to the Supremes.

-----------------

Watch for speculation on Supreme Court vacancies coming up, but don't expect the Justices to tip their hands.  For example, take John Paul Stevens, Washington Post, 18 November 2008. (thanks to JPS fan extraordinaire Alicia Harden for the heads up)

-----------------

Hoover's got Rehnquist and he's leaking out slowly.  See the Liptak/Glater piece in the New York Times, 18 November 2008.

-----------------

Nina Totenberg on the likely contours of a McCain and a Obama selection to the high court.  NPR, All Things Considered, October 29 and 30.

-----------------

Some surprising criticism of the Court's Second Amendment decision in D.C. v. Heller (2008) from republican court of appeals judges.  See Adam Liptak's piece in the 21 October issue of the New York Times.

-----------------

Samuel Alito joins John Paul Stevens in finding the water in the cert pool not to his liking.  See Adam Liptak in the New York Times, 26 June.

-----------------

Though I doubt he ever worked on Maggie's Farm, Chief Justice Roberts reveals a Dylanesque touch in his dissent in SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. v. APCC SERVICES, INC.  See Adam Liptak's thoughts on this in the 29 June, New York Times.

-----------------

Since the Court's 2007 Term is now over, NPR had to figure out something to do with Nina Totenberg.  So they told her to think back in time.  She came up with this piece on the Warren Court (een dead for 16 years, but he's on Broadway now.  Check out this New York Times review of Laurence Fishburn's rendering of Thurgood.  (Thanks to Mary Angelo for pointing this out.)

-----------------

The Supreme Court's decision in most recent Gitmo case, Boumediene v. Bush, might put it on the radar screen for the presidential election notes Linda Greenhouse in the 14 June edition of the New York Times. 

-----------------

Back when he was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, then nominee for Chief Justice John Roberts said he wanted the Court be act as a more collegial body, issue more unanimous opinions, and generally dial down the temperature in the Marble Palace.   Jeffrey Rosen, of the New Republic, and Linda Greenhouse (see items here and here) have tracked some of Roberts' efforts on this score.  In today's NYT, Greenhouse writes that something may be coming of the CJ's efforts as his third year in office is winding to an end.  (New York Times, 23 May)

-----------------

Because he is shy and retiring, Justice Scalia has recently taken to the airwaves.  On Sunday, 27 April, he was on 60 Minutes.  Monday, 28 April, he appeared on Morning Edition and All Things Considered.  Ostensibly, he is hawking his new, co-authored book, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges.

-----------------

Although the Supremes are not hearing cases this week, Justice Scalia filled the void somewhat by filing an opinion with the BBC on the subject of torture and the Constitution.  Listen to Nina Totenberg's report for clips from his interview.  (All Things Considered, 12 February 2008)  You can read the Reuters report here.

-----------------

 The Supremes must be important, because they made the cover of Time magazine, 22 October 2007.  (Thanks to Rachael Morgan for spotting the piece.)

-----------------

Adam Liptak has a good piece on a little understood aspect of Supreme Court procedure as it works in appeals of capital cases: four votes are necessary to grant certiorari, but five votes are needed to stay a pending execution.  New York Times, 8 October 2007.

-----------------

An interesting piece on the emergence of the Roberts Court by Ronald Dworkin in The New York Review of Books, 27 September 2007.

-----------------

The Supreme Court begins its 2007 Term Monday, 1 October, at 10 AM EDT.  You will find commentaries on this here, there, and everywhere (well, not quite everywhere), but note these to whet your whistle: MSNBC, 30 Sept.; NYT, 1 Oct; Washington Post, 1 Oct.; and NPR, 27 Sept., and 1 Oct.

-----------------

Clarence Thomas' autobiography, My Grandfather's Son, has just been published.  As the first autobiography of a sitting Justice -- at least since William O. Douglas' efforts -- it will get a lot of media play and comment.  I will list some notable reviews as they appear here: CBS News, 27 Sept., NPR, ABC News, 28 Jan., 29 Sept., Washington Post, 29 Sept.

Justice Thomas will also be on 60 Minutes Sunday, 30 Sept.

-----------------

A great profile of the gleefully cranky John Paul Stevens by Jeffrey Rosen in The New York Times Sunday Magazine, 23 September 2007.

-----------------

Adam Liptak reports on a "secret court" that may be coming out of the closet.  (New York Times, 10 Sept. 2007)

-----------------

In light of our discussion on the construction of the judicial branch, Linda Greenhouse warms up for the opening of the 2007 Term of the Supreme Court with this piece, musing on tenure for "good behavior." (New York Times, 10 Sept. 2007)

-----------------

An intriguing take on Justice Thomas and school integration from the New York Times, 9 July 2007.

-----------------

An interesting piece by Adam Cohen on "judicial role" and the 2006 Term of the Roberts Court in the op-ed section of the New York Times, 9 July 2007.

-----------------

Did Vice President Cheney find the seeds of the "Unitary Executive Theory" in the Iran-Contra Report's minority statement?  Check out Sean Wilentz's piece in the New York Times, 9 July 2007.

-----------------

Sure, they won most of the 5-4 decisions this term, but not all is well among the "new conservative majority" as is noted in this piece by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times.

-----------------

An interesting piece on the fortieth anniversary of the aptly named Loving (1967) case from NPR's All Things Considered, Monday 11 June 2007.

-----------------

With the Court having handed down many 5-4 decisions that can be explained on political/ideological criteria, Linda Greenhouse notes the increasingly pointed (and articulated) dissenting voice of Justice Ginsburg in The New York Times, 31 May.

-----------------

Linda Greenhouse nicely captures the feel of statutory ambiguity in a piece on the Family Medical Leave Act (New York Times, 28 May).

-----------------

1 May:  While likely not a bad thing, note that Justice Stephen Breyer doesn't know much about popular rock culture.  (Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me, 23 March 2007.  "Not My Job: Justice Stephen Breyer."  Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer plays our game called, "Your last album was inspired by $40,000 worth of primo hash and a disembodied spirit called Sheldon." Three stories about the rock 'n' roll lifestyle taken from a recent article in Blender magazine.)

-----------------

22 April: There is much discussion and analysis following the Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) decision, and much of it centers on the future of the Roe/Casey abortion right.  Linda Greenhouse has an interesting spin on it in the New York Times, and an interesting discussion of it occurred on NPR's Weekend Edition, Sunday.  Dahlia Lithwick has a similar spin in her piece in Slate.

-----------------

11 April.  Check out Linda Greenhouse's piece on the Supremes' E.P.A. decision of last week.  While the decision is an important one on both standing and environmental law, Greenhouse argues that the dissent of Chief Justice Roberts says a great deal about the limits of his drive for consensus on the Court.

-----------------

13 March:  Linda Greenhouse had a really nice piece in the New York Times on 7 March, musing "the Robert's Court," the Court's docket, and Justice Ginsburg's feet.

-----------------

28 February:  John Roberts shared time with other luminaries on the PBS blockbuster, The Supreme Court.  Last weekend, he had the satisfaction of appearing all by himself -- save for a battery of introducers -- at Northwestern University's Law School.  You can see it here, at C-SPAN. 

-----------------

20 February:  The decision in Boumediene v. Bush will generate a good deal of discussion and coverage.  For the basics, check out NPR and the New York Times.  For legal blogging on the decision, see SCOTUSblog and Howard Bashman's How Appealing.

-----------------

10 January: Catch Jeff Rosen talking about his new book on the Diane Rehm Show.  The Supreme Court (Times Books, 2007) is a companion volume to the upcoming PBS special, "The Supreme Court," to be broadcast on Wednesday, 31 January, and Wednesday, 7 February.

-----------------

Slate magazine is running a series drawn from former Justice Brennan's files.  Check out the pieces on Warren Burger (and the death penalty) (9 January), abortion (10 January), and his colleagues (11 January).

-----------------

8 January:  The Washington Post is on to the story that Linda Greenhouse reported on in December.

-----------------

7 January:  The Washington Post comments on the increasing visibility of Supreme Court Justices.

-----------------

5 January: I'm not sure how long it will be posted, but "yahoo news" has snippets of an ABC Nightline interview with John Paul Stevens that was broadcast on 2 and 3 January.  Not earth shattering stuff, but interesting none-the-less.  See the 8 December link below for other talking Justices.

-----------------

1 January:  Poor judges... no, really... poor judges.  Chief Justice Roberts has taken up the crusade of his predecessor and is seeking higher pay for federal judges.  See the Linda Greenhouse piece in the New York Times.

-----------------

30 December '06: Linda Greenhouse has a nice piece in the New York Times on the culmination of the work of the "Supreme Court History Project."  This small group of scholars reconstructed the Court's doings  -- uncovering new materials in noting errors in "official" records -- for 30 years.  Their project was published as a eight-volume set titled “Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800.”

-----------------

8 December: Sure it's the end of the semester, and sure maybe you've already finished the course, but, hey, we've got a dwindling docket and Breyer and Scalia rapping their interpretational jive.  (20 January 2007 update... these guys do this a lot.  See this, too.)

-----------------

Linda Greenhouse has an interesting piece in the 3 May edition of the New York Times on stylistic changes in the Supreme Court's comportment that have seemingly been brought on by the new Chief Justice.  Nina Totenberg jumped onto the party wagon with her Morning Edition piece on 22 May.

-----------------

Georgia prepares to teach classes on The Bible in its public schools.  See more on this piece from Newsweek (via MSNBC), 1 May 2006 issue.   Odessa, Texas, is doing it too (see Dallas Morning News, 2 May 2006.)

Justices Kennedy and Thomas nix cameras in the marble palace... a separation of powers concern?  See Greenhouse's piece in the New (and new look) York Times.

-----------------

Loose Lips...?
Newsweek reports that Justice Scalia, in a talk delivered at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland in early March, suggested that no significant case could be made to find the detention of detainees at Guantánamo Bay to be unconstitutional.  The New York Times ran this Reuters piece on the story.  The Supreme Court will hear a case raising these questions on Tuesday, 28 March... Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 367 U.S. App. D.C. 265 (D.C. Cir. 2005).  NPR's Nina Totenberg had this piece on "All Things Considered" on Monday, 27 March.  Chief Justice Roberts has already recused himself (he was on the appellate panel that upheld the program), and there is some pressure on Scalia to do the same now.  If he did, that would bring this important case before a 7-person Court.  Stay tuned....

-----------------

Sandra Day O'Connor, Unplugged
Newly retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took on conservative Republican critics of the courts in a speech Thursday. She told an audience at Georgetown University that Republican proposals, and their sometimes uncivil tone, pose a danger to the independence of the judiciary, and the freedoms of all Americans.  Morning Edition, March 10, 2006

-----------------

Abortion Foes Split on Strategy
With two new members of the Supreme Court, the long-simmering fight over abortion seems poised for a major change. That has advocates on both sides re-examining long-held political and legal strategies. The anti-abortion movement is divided about whether to continue inching forward, or try for a full reversal of Roe v. Wade.  Morning Edition, March 13, 2006

-----------------

22 February: Alito's first day on the bench as described  by Dana Milbank in The Washington Post.  Here's Dahlia Lithwick's spin in Slate.

17 February: Breyer recounts adjusting to being a Supreme Court Justice ... "Getting used to living a life where every word matters" -- in an interview with Linda Greenhouse, 17 February

15 February:  Sam hires helpers.  Alito's clerks are familiar and connected.  See Charles Lane's piece from the Washington Post, 15 February 2006.

12 February: Temporarily lost (by me, and hence this page) in the Alito elevation was this piece from Linda Greenhouse on the "changing" Supreme Court.

4 February: More on the "Alito Effect."  Adam Liptak suggests that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, long in the grave, have finally gotten their Court.  That said -- and although one vote does not a career make -- Alito's fist vote was with a 6-person majority in granting a stay of execution to a Missouri inmate.  The three Justices in dissent?  Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.

1 February:  Okay, and then there were nine... counting Justice Alito.  The question is... what will his effect be?  For one short term view, note this from the New York Times' Adam Liptak.

-----------------

23 January.  From the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" files, this piece on Anthony Kennedy as the new Sandra Day O'Connor in this week's Newsweek might be of interest.

-----------------

20 January:  A thoughtful piece offering one perspective on the current state of constitutional law by Rosa Brooks (law professor, UVA) in the Los Angeles Times.

 

Samuel Alito

   

(18 January)  Is Sam John?  Jeffrey Rosen thinks not.  See his piece in the New York Times, 15 January.

(6 January '06)  The Alito Judiciary Committee Hearings begin on  Monday, 9 January.  NPR has devoted this page to the nomination.  Other news sources, obviously, will also cover the proceedings.  Follow along in the usual sources:  The New York Times, The Washington Post, FoxNews and MSNBC.

(22 November)  A very good piece by Lee Epstein and Jeff Segal on Alito's likely directionality... and an important (who knows how important?) "but".....  The Washington Post, 20 November.

(2 November) Of interest, especially to students looking at equality relations within gender or familial relations, might be this piece by Adam Liptak in the New York Times (2 November) on Alito's views of marriage and family in conditioning the choices of individuals.  Also, for the Alito corpus (which kinda sounds like a book title), check out this page put together by the staff of the law library at the University of Michigan.

(31 October)  President Bush forwards a scary (to many Democrats and interest groups) pick to the Senate to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.  Known as "Scalito" and "Scalia-Lite" to some, Samuel Alito has been a judge on the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit since 1990.   Jay Sekulow, the general counsel for the American Center of Law and Justice -- a group affiliated with the Reverend Pat Robertson -- called the nomination "a grand slam."  Ralph Neas, President of People for the American Way, said that Alito "is an out of the mainstream opponent of fundamental legal rights and protections for all Americans and must not be confirmed to the Supreme Court."  Harriet Miers -- who was scary to some on the political right -- was not immediately available for comment. 

-----------------

A great piece on humor in oral arguments from Adam Liptack of the New York Times, 31 December 2005.

-----------------

Intelligent Design goes down in Dover, PA.  While this case is likely to go nowhere (newly elected members of the school board repealed the policy and are unlikely to appeal), the controversy will not go away.  The opinion of Judge John E. Jones III, a Bush 43 appointee, is here.  Also logged here is commentary on it from NPR's "All Things Considered, (20 December), "Morning Edition" (21 December) and The New York Times.  NPR also has a page devoted to "Debating Evolution in the Classroom."

-----------------

A charming piece by Linda Greenhouse from the 9 November New York Times on the atmospherics of the Roberts take over as C.J.  Note, in particular, three things: 1) who told him to call the Justices by their first names (what does that tell you?), 2) who was quippy about his majority opinion in a labor case, and 3) what Roberts was for Halloween.

-----------------

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... Sandra Day O'Connor keeps on keeping on.  Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times, 28 October.

Harriet Miers

(19 October)  The Miers confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin on Monday, 7 November.  Note this piece from the Dallas Morning News on the climate in Dallas law firms in the early 1970s for aspiring women. 

(3 October)  President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.  Thus, the Senate (and others) gear up for another confirmation process.  The White House and Senate Republicans want to expedite the process, so we may be looking at Senate action by Thanksgiving (compare to the 2 months that elapsed between Roberts' nomination and confirmation.  Unlike the Roberts model, though, some significant noise is coming from the President's right wing on the Miers choice.  Follow along in the usual sources:  The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and MSNBC.

Justice Breyer Writes Books, Too!

(2 October)  Justice Breyer has written a book on the process of judging.  It stands on its own, but it is also a response to Antonin Scalia and others who urge a more "originalist" or "textualist" approach to constitutional interpretation.  NPR's Nina Totenberg sat down with Breyer for a lengthy conversation about the argument presented in Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution.  The whole interview is slightly over an hour long, but you can listten to the portions on "orginalism" and "active liberty" as broadcast on Thursday's Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

(27 September)  While waiting on Roberts' confirmation and pick #2, ponder Stephen Breyer's thoughts on "active liberty," a partial response to Nino Scalia's version of originalism.  See Adam Cohen's piece in the 26 September New York Times.
Also, note John Judis' piece on Roberts and civil rights from The New Republic.

The Roberts Confirmation Hearings

(12 September)  The Roberts hearings begin to roll today.  Check the standard sources for coverage (The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and MSNBC), and note Nina Totenberg's report on NPR's Morning Edition this morning.

(11 September)  With hearings beginning tomorrow, Linda Greenhouse has this review of likely constitutional areas of questioning in the New York Times and Michael Grunwald gives you this picture of the man who will go before the committee in The Washington Post.

(6 September)  The hearings on the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will begin on Monday, 13 September.  While Roberts served as a clerk for William Rehnquist when the latter was an Associate Justice, Linda Greenhouse reports in the New York Times that he may have learned about what not to do as C.J. from that experience.

(5 September)  A further wrinkle: rather than have John Paul Stevens run the Court while a successor to the late Chief Justice Rehnquist was nominated, President Bush has nominated Judge Roberts to the Chief Justiceship.  His hearings, originally slated to begin on Tuesday, 6 September, may be pushed back a week in light of this change and the continuing difficulties posed by hurricane Katrina.  O'Connor will stay on the Court until her successor is confirmed.  The White House has announced no timetable for nominating someone to replace her, but -- given that the administration went through a canvassing process a couple of months ago -- expect a nominee in a relatively short period of time.  Potential candidates can be seen in the usual media sources.  Follow the machinations at The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and MSNBC.

(4 September)  The Senate Judiciary Hearings for Judge John Roberts begin this week.  Fated to be contentious in right of the frequently pivotal nature of Justice O'Connor's vote, the tensions embedded in the hearings will be heightened by Chief Justice Rehnquist's death.  With two vacancies on the Supreme Court, President Bush's pending nomination for Chief Justice will loom over the Roberts hearings, as Senators, groups, and interested others position themselves in this battle and the one to come ... now sooner rather than later. 

 

(to "News Coverage" page)

(to Kobylka homepage)