Yesterday’s Court coverage continued to center on remarks by Justices Scalia and Alito at the Federalist Society’s annual National Lawyers Convention. Zoe Tillman of the Blog of Legal Times covers Justice Scalia’s remark that he doesn’t “live or die for” Bill of Rights cases, but rather for cases that “test the structure of U.S. government, from separation of powers to federalism.” Debra Cassens Weiss of the ABA Journal notes Justice Alito’s rebuttal to critics of the Court’s Citizens United decision, while the editorial board of the New York Times responds to Alito’s arguments and Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog criticizes Alito’s position but defends the Justice’s choice of forum. And Peter Landers at the WSJ Law Blog notes Justice Scalia’s reading recommendations, which include The Federalist Papers and Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.

The Justices conference today. Our “Petitions to watch” for today’s Conference is here.

 

Briefly:

  • At this blog, Lyle Denniston previews next Monday’s arguments in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., which tests the scope of immunity for antitrust protections for private entities in public service.
  • Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports on the petition in The California Table Grape Commission v. Delano Farms Co., which challenges a state farm program.
  • At Slate, Emily Bazelon preemptively argues that the Court should not a base a decision to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder upon “the outcome of the last two presidential elections.”
  • Both Peter Smith of the Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal and UPI have coverage of the advocacy group American Atheists’ petition to challenge a Kentucky law crediting “Almighty God” for the “safety and security of the commonwealth.”
  • At PrawfsBlawg, Bill Araiza continues a series of posts about the Court’s decisions in the employment law cases Village of Willowbrook v. Olech and Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, which implicate the so-called “class of one” theory of equal protection.
  • Bob Scheiffer of CBS News interviews retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who offers her thoughts on the implications of the vote in this summer’s health care decision (video).
  • The Bloomington (Ill.) Pantagraph (via the Chicago Tribune) reports that Eureka College will honor Justice O’Connor by naming her an Honorary Ronald Reagan Fellow.
  • In the context of discussing potential outcomes of the affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the editorial board of the New York Times contends that class-based admissions preferences are not a true substitute for race-based admissions preferences.
  • At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh concludes from a study of the Court’s hate speech cases that liberal Justices “are somewhat more likely than conservatives to support protection for what is sometimes labeled ‘hate speech,’ though the gulf isn’t vast, and there’s a substantial split of opinion on both sides.”
  • At the Huffington Post, Eric Black reopens the debate over whether the unelected Court should be the final arbiter of laws in the United States.
  • The Associated Press (via the Columbus (Ind.) Republic) reports that New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez will file written arguments in Maryland v. King, which concerns the validity of several state DNA collection and analysis statutes.

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Kiran Bhat, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 20, 2012, 10:41 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/tuesday-round-up-150/