Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upFor The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim and others report that “Senate Republicans strongly signaled on Wednesday that they will forge ahead with embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation as his accuser called the rush for a public hearing next week unfair.” For The New York Times, Peter Baker and Nicholas Fandos report that […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

For The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim and others report that “Senate Republicans strongly signaled on Wednesday that they will forge ahead with embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation as his accuser called the rush for a public hearing next week unfair.” For The New York Times, Peter Baker and Nicholas Fandos report that the resistance of Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault when they were teenagers, “to appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday seemed to galvanize Republicans and drew wavering Republican senators back into Judge Kavanaugh’s camp.” Natalie Andrews and others report for The Wall Street Journal that “White House Spokesman Raj Shah said the president won’t look at naming any replacement nominee unless there is a clear need” and that the administration is “going ‘full steam ahead’ to support Judge Kavanaugh, who has denied the assault accusations.”

At USA Today, Richard Wolf and Kevin Johnson talk to experts about whether the FBI could “break the deadlock” over the allegation. Tony Mauro reports for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required) that “[n]o matter how the fast-breaking developments surrounding Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation unfold, it is sinking in among Supreme Court advocates and scholars that a new term will almost certainly begin on Oct. 1 with eight justices, not nine, on the bench.” Commentary comes from Elizabeth Slattery and Carrie Severino in an episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Caroline Reilly at Rewire.News, Penny Nance in an op-ed for USA Today, the editorial board of The Washington Post, Charles Blow in an op-ed for The New York Times, and Andrew McCarthy in an op-ed for Fox News. 

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upFor The Wall Street Journal, Kristina Peterson and others report that “[a]ttorneys for [Christine Blasey Ford,] the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault[,] said she wants a full investigation of the allegations before she testifies on Capitol Hill, throwing into doubt a planned Monday hearing that would have pitted her word against that of […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

For The Wall Street Journal, Kristina Peterson and others report that “[a]ttorneys for [Christine Blasey Ford,] the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault[,] said she wants a full investigation of the allegations before she testifies on Capitol Hill, throwing into doubt a planned Monday hearing that would have pitted her word against that of the Supreme Court nominee.” For The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim and others report that “Democrats, like Ford, argued that the scheduled Monday session should be delayed until the FBI further investigates her allegation.” Peter Baker and others report for The New York Times that “Republicans signaled Tuesday night that they would not negotiate an alternative date and would go ahead with the hearing without her or declare it unnecessary if she refuses to appear, then possibly move to a vote.” At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that “Kavanaugh’s former women law clerks who were willing to discuss the fast-moving controversy surrounding his Supreme Court nomination still support him.” Commentary comes from Imani Gandy and Jessica Mason Pieklo at Rewire.News’ Boom! Lawyered podcast and from David French at National Review.

Briefly:

  • For The Washington Post, Michelle Ye Lee Hee and Robert Barnes report that “[a]dvocacy groups pouring money into independent campaigns to impact this fall’s midterm races must disclose many of their political donors beginning this week after the Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a long-running case.”
  • For this blog, Rory Little looks ahead at some of the criminal law cases on the court’s docket for next term.
  • At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery previews several cases in the October 2018 argument session.
  • At the Denver Law Review Online, law student Kirk McGill and Ben McGill look at the practical impact and legal implications of the court’s ruling last term in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, in which the justices held that SEC administrative law judges are “officers of the United States” under the appointments clause, who have to be appointed by the president, a court or a department head; they predict “interesting times ahead for the Administrative State.”
  • At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps discusses two capital cases on the court’s docket next term: Madison v. Alabama, an Eighth Amendment challenge to the execution a death-row inmate who has dementia and cannot remember his crime, and Bucklew v. Precythe, in which an inmate argues that because he suffers from a rare medical condition, execution by lethal injection will cause him intolerable pain.

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upFor The Washington Post, Felicia Sonmez and others report that “Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused him of sexually assaulting her decades ago will testify publicly before the Senate on Monday, setting up a potentially dramatic and politically perilous hearing that could determine the fate of his nomination.” For […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

For The Washington Post, Felicia Sonmez and others report that “Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused him of sexually assaulting her decades ago will testify publicly before the Senate on Monday, setting up a potentially dramatic and politically perilous hearing that could determine the fate of his nomination.” For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports on “what could happen as the drama over Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation and Kavanaugh’s denial plays out.” At NPR, Nina Totenberg looks at the “differences and similarities” between these allegations and those made by Anita Hill against Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991. Commentary comes from Curt Levey in an op-ed for Fox News, the editorial board of The New York Times, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, and the editorial board of The Washington Post.

Briefly:

  • Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post first published at Howe on the Court, that the Trump administration yesterday “asked the Supreme Court to intervene in a dispute over documents in a lawsuit challenging the ban, announced in 2017, on open service in the U.S. military by transgender Americans.”
  • At NJ.com, Alexis Johnson reports on a recent visit to the Newark Public Library by Justice Sonia Sotomayor “to celebrate the release of her two new children’s books and discuss how reading as a child helped her achieve an appointment to the nation’s highest court.”
  • At In a Crowded Theater, Erica Goldberg looks at a new case involving Jack Phillips, the cake artist whose refusal to create a cake for a same-sex wedding led to last term’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who has “sued the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for another ruling against him and his bakery.”
  • For this blog, Andrew Hamm reports that “Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute has released an enhanced digital version of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation,’ often known more simply as the ‘Constitution Annotated’ or ‘CONAN,’” which “provides Congress and the public with analysis of thousands of Supreme Court cases interpreting the Constitution.”
  • At The Federalist Society, Donald Kochan urges the justices to review two cases “applying novel tort theories to hold that paint companies committed a ‘public nuisance’ when they truthfully advertised a then-lawful product—lead paint—long before the dangers of lead paint were discovered and well before the sale or promotion of lead paint was outlawed.”
  • At the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, Wayne Logan discusses Gundy v. United States, in which the justices will decide whether a provision of the federal sex-offender act violates the nondelegation doctrine, noting that Gundy is “a decidedly unlikely emissary in conservatives’ campaign to dismantle the administrative state.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upFor The Washington Post, Emma Brown reports that Christine Blasey Ford, the author of the confidential letter containing an allegation of sexual assault against her by Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh when they were both in high school, has come forward with her first public comments about the allegation. Also for The Post, Sean […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

For The Washington Post, Emma Brown reports that Christine Blasey Ford, the author of the confidential letter containing an allegation of sexual assault against her by Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh when they were both in high school, has come forward with her first public comments about the allegation. Also for The Post, Sean Sullivan and others report that “Sens. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.), Republicans who are retiring at the end of this term, joined Democrats in urging a delay in the vote until the [Senate Judiciary] Committee hears from Ford.” At Politico, Burgess Everett reports that “Flake is one of 11 Republicans on the narrowly divided panel and without his support, the committee cannot advance his nomination.” For NPR, Nina Totenberg reports that “[t]he public accusation against Brett Kavanaugh is sure to be the center of gravity in Washington politics this week.” Commentary comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime & Consequences, Garrett Epps at The Atlantic, Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice, David Boyle at Boyle’s Laws, Kathleen Parker in an op-ed for The Washington Post, and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal , which writes that “the accusation is too distant, too disputed and too late in the day. It also doesn’t fit everything else we know about Mr. Kavanaugh’s behavior across his 53 years.” Additional commentary on the nomination comes from David Gans in an op-ed for the Bangor Daily News.

Briefly:

  • Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post first published at Howe on the Court, that Chief Justice John Roberts on Sunday granted a request from Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategy to put a hold on a federal district court order “invalidat[ing] a Federal Election Commission regulation governing when political nonprofit groups, sometimes referred to as ‘dark money’ groups, must disclose their donors.”
  • At The Times Picayune, Heather Nolan reports that a Louisiana “landowner’s fight with the federal government over whether his private property should become a new breeding ground for the endangered dusky gopher frog- which last was seen in the parish more than 50 years ago – could be nearing the end of a six-year legal battle” when the Supreme Court decides Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service next term.
  • At Capital Appellate Advocacy, Lawrence Ebner maintains that “[t]he real Supreme Court Bar is not limited to the small number of very talented attorneys who repeatedly handle oral arguments before the Court,” but “is composed of hundreds of attorneys from around the United States who author and file Supreme Court petitions and briefs.”
  • In the latest episode of First Mondays (podcast), Dan Epps and Ian Samuel are “joined by Kent Greenfield and Adam Winkler, who both have new books about corporate personhood, as well as our bankruptcy expert, Danielle D’Onfro.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Friday round-up

Friday round-upFor The New York Times, Catie Edmondson and Nicholas Fandos report that “[t]he senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee referred information involving Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, to federal investigators on Thursday, but the senator declined to make public what the matter involved.” Additional coverage comes from Seung […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

For The New York Times, Catie Edmondson and Nicholas Fandos report that “[t]he senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee referred information involving Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, to federal investigators on Thursday, but the senator declined to make public what the matter involved.” Additional coverage comes from Seung Min Kim and Elise Viebeck for The Washington Post, Richard Wolf for USA Today, Kristina Peterson and Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, Burgess Everett and Edward-Isaac Dovere at Politico, and Jennifer Haberkorn for the Los Angeles Times, who reports that the Intercept, an online news publication that originally revealed the existence of the letter, “said the letter apparently describes an incident involving Kavanaugh and a young woman while they were in high school, but included no details.” Nina Totenberg reports for NPR that “[t]he White House is accusing Senate Democrats of an unfounded ‘11th hour attempt to delay’ a vote on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.” The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal asserts that “[t]he episode says more about the desperation of Democrats than it does about Mr. Kavanaugh, and the real disgrace would be if Republicans did anything other than move promptly to a confirmation vote.”

For The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim reports that “[t]he Senate Judiciary Committee delayed its vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh until next week, as the deeply bitter fight over his confirmation intensified and a handful of moderate senators continued to deliberate privately over whether to support him.” Additional coverage comes from Richard Wolf at USA Today, who reports that “[t]he action keeps Kavanaugh on schedule to win Senate confirmation before the Oct. 1 start of the court’s 2018 term,” despite attempts by Democrats during yesterday’s committee meeting to gain access to additional documents from Kavanaugh’s years in the Bush White House.

At USA Today, Christal Hayes reports that “[a] watchdog group is asking the Justice Department to investigate a number of groups they say may be illegally pressuring Sen. Susan Collins to gain her vote against … Kavanaugh,” which “Collins says she sees … as an attempt to bribe her for the vote.” Geof Koss and Ellen Gilmer report for E&E News that “Sen. Lisa Murkowski is scrutinizing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s record on tribal issues, as pressure grows from Alaska Natives to oppose President Trump’s latest pick for the high court.”

For this blog, in a post originally published at Howe on the Court, Amy Howe offers highlights from Kavanaugh’s responses to over 1,200 written questions submitted by Judiciary Committee members in the wake of the hearing. At Education Week, Mark Walsh reports that Kavanaugh explained in response to one question “that he assumed the father of a student killed in the Parkland, Fla., shooting who had approached him on the chaotic first day of his confirmation hearing was a protestor.”

At Rewire.News, Imani Gandy argues that both sides in the dispute over whether Kavanaugh was expressing his own views or those of a litigant when he used the term “abortion-inducing drugs” at the hearing to describe contraceptives “are overlooking the important part: the fact that Kavanaugh’s opinion in Priests for Life … suggests a willingness to allow evangelicals, by claiming a sincerely held religious belief, to be exempted from laws intended to provide people with contraceptive access through their employers, even when following those laws would require said employers to do nothing more than sign a piece of paper.” In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Paul Waldman writes that “a Supreme Court with Kavanaugh on it could create a free-for-all when it comes to the influence of money in politics, a new era in which corruption is absolutely rampant — and completely legal.” At The Daily Signal, Thomas Jipping deplores “the misdirection, the fake indignation, the sudden interest in a once-irrelevant confirmation process, [and] the most creative obstruction tactics” of Senate Democrats who “already had their minds made up” to oppose the nomination.

Briefly:

  • At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that in response “to continued #MeToo scrutiny of the federal judiciary, the Judicial Conference,” headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, “on Thursday proposed significant changes in its code of conduct and rules to make it easier for employees to file complaints, and harder for perpetrators to escape punishment.”
  • At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, Bernard Bell offers the second in a series of posts on the issues in a case involving the scope of the Freedom of Information Act’s trade-secrets exemption, in which the Supreme Court recently recalled the mandate.
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman assesses the performance of “attorneys [who] have argued cases across the last five Supreme Court terms, from 2013 through 2017.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upFor USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh responded to more than 1,000 written questions from dissatisfied Democrats Wednesday by revealing more about his personal finances but little more about his views on the law.” At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro highlight some of […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh responded to more than 1,000 written questions from dissatisfied Democrats Wednesday by revealing more about his personal finances but little more about his views on the law.” At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro highlight some of Kavanaugh’s answers to more than a thousand written questions posed by senators … in the wake of [Kavanaugh’s] confirmation hearing last week.” Additional coverage comes from Paulina Dedaj at Fox News, Seung Min Kim for The Washington Post, Lisa Mascaro at the Associated Press, and Ariane de Vogue and Phil Mattingly at CNN, who report that “Kavanaugh said he would have shaken hands and spoken with the father of a Parkland school shooting victim last week had he realized who he was.”

As the Senate Judiciary Committee continues to consider Kavanaugh’s nomination, Democratic senators and progressive groups are amplifying their concerns about the nominee. At Roll Call, Todd Ruger reports that “Senate Democrats have added a new line of attack against … Kavanaugh, accusing the longtime appeals court judge of misleading or even lying under oath during his confirmation hearing last week.” Richard Cowan and Lawrence Hurley report at Reuters that Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., “raised new questions about whether … Kavanaugh has accurately described his role in a controversial judicial nomination when he worked for then-President George W. Bush.” Jordain Carney reports at The Hill that “Senate Democrats will move forward this week with suing to get access to documents tied to … Kavanaugh.”

For The Washington Post, Eli Rosenberg detects signs that an “unusual crowdfunding campaign” by “a group of liberal activists in Maine” soliciting pledges to be contributed in 2020 to a Democrat challenging Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., if Collins votes for Kavanaugh’s confirmation “could be backfiring.” At The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and others report that Collins has called “’[t]This quid pro quo fund-raising campaign … the equivalent of an attempt to bribe me.’” The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal agrees, suggesting that “the next time progressives complain about the menace of money in politics,” they should be reminded “of their failure to object to the crowdfunding bribe offered to Senator Collins.” At Slate, Richard Hasen argues that claims by Republican election lawyer Cleta “Mitchell and others that the fundraising effort is illegal are wrong, in part thanks to the deregulated campaign finance system that Mitchell and others have helped to create through litigation and a sympathetic Supreme Court.”

At Rewire.News, Jessica Mason Pieklo talks to the teenage survivor of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting who testified last Friday at Kavanaugh’s hearing in an effort “to make the senators look at the human cost of Kavanaugh’s views on gun rights.” In an op-ed for The Hill, Dr. Roger Klein explains why, “[w]hen future Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed later this month, the unsung hero of the battle will be Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).” In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse “consider[s] the impact of Judge Kavanaugh’s arrival on the eight other justices — on the dynamic of the Supreme Court as a whole,” wondering what “the Supreme Court [will] look like when neither side has to walk on eggs to win the favor of the one in the middle.”

Briefly:

  • In an essay for The Atlantic, Justice Stephen Breyer maintains that “[i]nternational law, the domestic laws and customs of other nations, and the decisions of foreign courts have become part of today’s American judicial experience.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upAriane de Vogue and Phil Mattingly report for CNN that “[a]fter spending more than 20 hours testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is still answering questions,” as “Democrats are following committee rules and sending Kavanaugh pages and pages of so called ‘questions for the record.’” Todd Ruger reports for […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Ariane de Vogue and Phil Mattingly report for CNN that “[a]fter spending more than 20 hours testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is still answering questions,” as “Democrats are following committee rules and sending Kavanaugh pages and pages of so called ‘questions for the record.’” Todd Ruger reports for Roll Call that “[a]s the Senate continues its processing of … Kavanaugh, it does so in the shadow of the last day of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing, with strikingly different depictions of the appeals court judge on display.” At USA Today, Erin Kelly reports that Judiciary Committee “Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released an agenda Monday with Kavanaugh’s name at the top of a list of judicial nominees that the committee will consider Thursday,” but that “Democrats are expected to use a committee rule to delay the vote until Sept. 20 or 27.”

At CNN, Grace Sparks breaks down the results of a new poll showing that “Americans are divided on whether or not senators should vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, with 38% who say yes and 39% who say no.” For Politico, Elana Schor and Burgess Everett report that Kavanaugh’s performance at the hearing is “not stopping the Supreme Court nominee’s liberal critics from unleashing new ads and grass-roots campaigns in one last shot at derailing him” by “keep[ing] pressure on the dwindling number of senators still undecided on President Donald Trump’s high court pick.”

In The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column, Glenn Kessler concludes that California Democratic Senator Kamala Harris’ statement that Kavanaugh “’uncritically used the term “abortion-inducing drugs,” which is a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control,’” at the hearing was misleading; Kessler awards Harris four Pinocchios. In an op-ed for The Hill, Armstrong Williams that much of the Democrats’ efforts to “try and sully Kavanaugh” at the hearing “looked more like a poor comedy than serious political theater.” In an op-ed for The New York Times, Michelle Goldberg maintains that Kavanaugh’s opinion in Garza v. Hargan, in which he would have delayed an undocumented teen’s ability to receive an abortion, “offers a clue about what’s in store for American women if he’s confirmed to the Supreme Court.” At Rewire.News, Katelyn Burns calls the story of “Kelly Gregory[, who] is a Tennessee resident living with stage 4 terminal breast cancer[,]… emblematic of what is at stake for many people in the United States when it comes to health care, and that’s exactly why Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) both told it last week” during the hearing.

Briefly:

  • At Law360 (subscription required), retired state-court judge George Eskin urges the justices to review Lacaze v. Louisiana, which “involves an egregious personal conflict of interest for a judge who presided over a capital case.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upCommentators continue to weigh in on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in the wake of Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearing last week. In an op-ed for Central Maine, Kavanaugh’s former White House colleague Sarah Day praises him as “a thoughtful leader [and] a champion of others.” For The Yale Daily News, […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Commentators continue to weigh in on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in the wake of Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearing last week. In an op-ed for Central Maine, Kavanaugh’s former White House colleague Sarah Day praises him as “a thoughtful leader [and] a champion of others.” For The Yale Daily News, Adelaide Feibel writes that “a few select Yalies had the chance [last week] to voice their opinions of Kavanaugh on a grand stage, before the Senate and the nation.” Lisa Keen argues at Keen News Service that Kavanaugh’s testimony “did nothing to quell concerns in the LGBT community that Kavanaugh is an ultra-conservative, maybe even anti-LGBT, jurist who will almost certainly give the Supreme Court’s existing four conservative justices the fifth vote they need to vote against the equal rights interests of LGBT people.”

Michael Tomasky writes in an op-ed for The New York Times that lobbying red-state Democratic senators up for re-election “to vote no … [is] a waste of … time and money.” In an op-ed for The Washington Post, E.J. Dionne contends that “[c]onservatives are willing to bend and break the rules, violate decorum and tradition, hide information and push Judge Kavanaugh through at breakneck speed” because “[t]hey want a Supreme Court that will achieve their policy objectives — on regulation, access to the ballot, social issues, the influence of money in politics and the role of corporations in our national life — no matter what citizens might prefer in the future.”

Jeremy Stahl at Slate suggests that “[i]f a supposedly independent jurist like Kavanaugh sees Trump’s authoritarian decrees as debatable political points rather than clear constitutional violations, then there’s no mistaking that we’ve moved into a new era in American jurisprudence.” At RealClear Policy, Erin Hawley explains why women should support Kavanaugh, arguing that “[i]f women are concerned about having an impact on the decisions that affect their lives, picking justices who will limit themselves and the Supreme Court to its constitutional role is the answer — not opposing someone who has been a champion for women for his entire career.” At ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser writes that Kavanaugh’s endorsement during his hearing of the Glucksberg test for determining when an unenumerated right is protected by the Constitution, which looks at whether the right is deeply rooted in history and tradition, “threatens a whole lot more than the right to an abortion”: “It also suggests that he believes that a wide range of Supreme Court decisions governing sex, romantic relationships, and intimacy were wrongly decided.”

At Rewire.News, Jodi Jacobson maintains that “Kavanaugh should be disqualified because he has been dishonest, dissembled, and shown a lack of ethics in handling the emails and related documents.” The editorial board of The Boston Globe urges Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., to oppose the nomination, maintaining that “there’s a deep bench of conservative jurists to choose from, and surely the president can find one without Kavanaugh’s strained relationship with the truth.”  The editorial board of National Review explains why allegations that Kavanaugh’s testimony at earlier confirmation hearings was untruthful are “laughably frivolous.”

Briefly:

  • At the Columbia Journalism Review, Alexandria Neason profiles 16-year-old Anna Salvatore, the founder of “High School SCOTUS, a blog written entirely by teens.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upOn Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up its four-day hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court with a day of testimony from witnesses, including former law clerks to Kavanaugh, two former solicitors general, a survivor of the Parkland school shooting, and John Dean, President Richard Nixon’s White House counsel […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

On Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up its four-day hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court with a day of testimony from witnesses, including former law clerks to Kavanaugh, two former solicitors general, a survivor of the Parkland school shooting, and John Dean, President Richard Nixon’s White House counsel during Watergate. We live-blogged the session, and Jon Levitan rounded up early coverage and commentary for this blog. Amy Howe recaps the highlights of the day’s proceedings in a podcast at Howe on the Court; a Daily Journal podcast also has a rundown.

At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports that throughout the hearing, “President Trump’s pick for the high court successfully parried questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Democratic complaints that they had seen just 10 percent of his government record didn’t seem to raise much public ire.” For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Seung Min Kim report that “by the close of the four-day hearings, some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed resigned to Kavanaugh’s confirmation.” For The New York Times, Adam Liptak observes that “Judge Kavanaugh must have studied earlier confirmation hearings carefully, as he had absorbed all of their key lessons: Say nothing, say it at great length, and then say it again.”

In an op-ed for The New York Times, Katherine Stewart argues that “[i]f the Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh, it will be declaring that the United States is a nation in which one brand of religion enjoys a place of privilege; that we are a nation of laws — except in cases where the law offends those who subscribe to our preferred religion; and that we recognize the dignity of all people unless they belong to specific groups our national religion views with disapproval.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost maintains that “[p]olitical differences aside, a common-sense reading of Kavanaugh’s testimony shows that he is ready if confirmed to vote to overrule the abortion-rights decision Roe v. Wade and that he is an uncertain vote at most to uphold any investigative procedures directed at the president who nominated him for the Supreme Court.” At First Mondays (podcast), Ian Samuel and Leah Litman “discuss their favorite and least favorite moments of the … hearings.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Evening round-up: Final day of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing

Evening round-up: Final day of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearingThe Senate Judiciary Committee has concluded its hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Today consisted of witness testimony; there were four panels and 28 total witnesses. Coverage of the day’s events comes from Jessica Gresko of the Associated Press, who reports that “with [Kavanaugh’s] questioning over, he seemed on […]

The post Evening round-up: Final day of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Evening round-up: Final day of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing

The Senate Judiciary Committee has concluded its hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Today consisted of witness testimony; there were four panels and 28 total witnesses. Coverage of the day’s events comes from Jessica Gresko of the Associated Press, who reports that “with [Kavanaugh’s] questioning over, he seemed on his way to becoming the court’s 114th justice.” For The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim focuses on the testimony of John Dean, former White House counsel for the Nixon Administration, “who played a crucial role in the Watergate scandal” and testified against Kavanugh’s confirmation. Further coverage comes from Amanda Becker of Reuters, Byron Tau of The Wall Street Journal; Erik Wasson of Bloomberg; and Emma O’Connor of Buzzfeed.

Commentary on the hearing comes from Damon Root for Reason; Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress; John Nichols for The Nation; Hans A. von Spakovsky for Fox News; David B. Rivkin Jr. in The Hill; Monica Hesse for The Washington Post; Jeremy Stahl of Slate, with another piece from Slate from Dahlia Lithwick, who focuses on the protesters who interrupted the hearings. Editorials come from The Wall Street Journal, which decried Senator Cory Booker’s release of documents on Thursday, and The Washington Post, which lamented “a depressing display of the breakdown of Senate norms.” Two podcasts discuss the hearing — Elizabeth Slattery looks at the highlights with Tom Jipping and Hans A. von Spakovsky on SCOTUS 101, while Garrett Epps was interviewed by Diane Rehm on On My Mind.

The post Evening round-up: Final day of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com