Monday round-up

By Nabiha Syed
on Feb 7, 2011 at 12:57 pm

With the Court in recess until February 18, coverage centers on health-care litigation and the Justices themselves.

Adam Liptak, writing for the New York Times, notes that “the current court represents something the nation has not seen in more than half a century:  a seemingly perfect alignment between justices’ partisan affiliations and their ideological predispositions.”  He considers whether “the public perception of the court may be altered” if the five Justices appointed by Republican presidents were to strike down health-care litigation.  And in light of a recent call by Senator Orrin Hatch for Justice Kagan to recuse herself from any health-care-related litigation, the Associated Press discusses the likelihood that she would do so and the potential effects of a recusal.  Meanwhile, the Economist considers how the attitudinal model of judicial decision-making might – or might not – the Justices’ take on the Affordable Care Act. At the American Prospect’s Tapped blog, Scott Lemieux also expresses doubt over whether Supreme Court modeling can reveal an answer in this case.

Finally, the Kansas City InfoZine covers Justice Ginsburg’s appearance at George Washington University last week, where she dispelled rumors of impending retirement and discussed the history of women on the Court. Justice Thomas answered questions about judicial activism at Ave Maria University on Friday, according to Naples News and the Ave Herald. And Justice Scalia appeared last week at the University of Adelaide, reports the Australian; among other things, the Justice criticized what he described as the “undemocratic” European Union.

Briefly:

– The Philadelphia Inquirer commemorates the life and work of Ralph Spritzer, the a University of Pennsylvania law professor who argued more than sixty cases before the Court; Spritzer died last month.  (Thanks to How Appealing for the link.)

-The editorial board of the New York Times criticizes Justices Scalia and Thomas for what it describes as “pushing the line between law and politics.”