At The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim and others report that “[a]n attorney for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, said Thursday that her appearing at a hearing on Monday to detail her claims is ‘not possible’ but that she […]
At The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim and others report that “[a]n attorney for Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, said Thursday that her appearing at a hearing on Monday to detail her claims is ‘not possible’ but that she could testify later in the week.” Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports for The New York Times that Ford “appeared to leave the door open to testifying even if the F.B.I. does not investigate her accusations, as she had previously requested.” At Politico, Burgess Everett and Elana Schor report that “Ford’s attorneys held a high-stakes call with Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday night that ended with no decision on when or if Ford will testify.” Kristina Peterson and others report for The Wall Street Journal that “[i]f the two sides can’t strike a deal on the conditions, it is unclear if Republicans would still hold a hearing with Judge Kavanaugh as the sole witness.”
At NPR, Nina Totenberg offers a “look back to how Anita Hill’s charges of sexual harassment against now-Justice Clarence Thomas were handled and mishandled 27 years ago.” Joan Biskupic at CNN explores the similarities between the allegation against Kavanaugh and the charges levied against Thomas, suggesting that both cases show that “the credibility of the Senate vetting process may be shot.” Commentary comes from Carrie Severino at National Review, Kate Shaw in an op-ed for The New York Times, Elizabeth Slattery at The Daily Signal, and Catherine Rampell in an op-ed for The Washington Post.
At The Hill, Lydia Wheeler reports that, according to legal experts, “[t]he political fury surrounding … Kavanaugh’s confirmation process could prompt the Supreme Court to hold off on tackling high-profile cases on issues like abortion and affirmative action in its upcoming term.” Daniel Perle writes for Cronkite News (via Indianz.com) that “Native Americans [should be added] to the list of groups concerned about Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” as “legal and tribal advocates said they are concerned by past writings on the legal status of Native tribes, his record on environmental regulation and a 2012 ruling on a voter ID law.”
- At Law360 (subscription required), Ryan Davis looks at “some patent cases to keep an eye on during the upcoming term.”
- At the Federalist Society Review, Michael Dimino argues that “[t]he real story” in in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, in which the court held last term that a Minnesota law banning political apparel at polling places was facially overbroad, “is not in the law that the Court struck down, but in the laws that the Court hinted that it would uphold.”
- In an op-ed for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Gerald Kogan looks at Jones v. Oklahoma, a cert petition in which the justices have been asked to decide whether, “[i]f the risk of racial bias in Oklahoma [capital-sentencing determinations] can be statistically proven, … that make[s] a death sentence unconstitutional.”
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!