This weekend’s clippings address the Court’s role in the upcoming presidential election and provide additional coverage of last week’s oral arguments in Fisher. 

On Friday, President Obama’s re-election campaign filed a brief in which it urged the Court not to block the Sixth Circuit’s decision precluding the state from limiting early voting during the weekend before election day. Lyle covered the filing (as well as the state’s reply) over the weekend; additional coverage comes from Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr, The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes, Terry Baynes of Reuters, and the Associated Press. At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen reports on the filings and discusses the Obama campaign’s citation to the Court’s 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore.

Additional discussion of the Court’s role in the election comes from Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, who notes that despite the closely divided Court, four Justices in their seventies, and two candidates with drastically different views of the ideal nominee, the candidates have said very little about the Court. At UPI, Michael Kirkland discusses what effect, if any, the fight over voter ID laws might have on the election, as well as how the Justices might rule on those cases.

Finally, this weekend’s coverage included additional discussion of, and commentary on, last week’s arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the challenge to the university’s use of race in its undergraduate admissions process.  In The New York Times, David Leonhardt suggests that the strategic decision by supporters of affirmative action to emphasize diversity over fairness “is a big reason they find themselves in such a vulnerable position today.”  At The Washington Post, Nick Anderson reports that D.C.-area colleges are wary of how the case will be resolved.


Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Marissa Miller, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 15, 2012, 9:05 AM),