We have changed our round-up format!  In an effort to simplify the process for our round-up team, going forward we will only include in the round-up news articles and posts that are submitted to us.  If you have (or know of) an article or post that you would like to have included in the round-up, please send a link to roundup [at] scotusblog.com so that we can consider it.

Thursday’s coverage of the Court continued to focus on retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s recent comments to The Chicago Tribune, in which she expressed doubt about the Court’s grant of certiorari in Bush v. Gore.  At Constitution Daily, Lyle suggests that in a “constitutional crisis” like the one faced in 2000, it is “impossible to imagine that America would have been content to let a lower court resolve” the issue.  Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway agrees, suggesting that “an argument can be made that the Court did the right thing” in granting certiorari, as the Court’s involvement “brought some degree of certainty into the process and lent an air of legal legitimacy to the outcome of the election that was sorely lacking during the long period after Election Day.”  At the Daily Beast, Megan McArdle argues that the Court “probably came up with the least problematic response,” and that it is difficult to comprehend a way in which the Court “could have stayed out of it” – a sentiment with which Andrew Sullivan, at The Dish, agrees.  [Disclosure:  The law firm of Thomas C. Goldstein, P.C., now known as Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to respondent Al Gore in that case.]

Briefly:

  • For this blog, Ronald Collins interviews Alex Wohl on the occasion of the publication of his new book, a dual biography about Justice Tom Clark and his son, Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
  • At Lawfare, Steve Vladeck argues that the Court should grant certiorari in Ali v. United States, a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces upheld the constitutionality of court-martial jurisdiction over a civilian contractor, when it meets to discuss the issue at its Conference next week.  Vladeck summarizes the case and contends that “Ali is the most important military jurisdiction case to come to the Supreme Court in the last quarter century.”
  • In the ABA Journal, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky analyzes the oral arguments in the same-sex marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge to Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act) and suggests that “it may be harder for the justices to rule narrowly than it appeared at oral argument,” given the shaky constitutional basis for some possible holdings. [Disclosure: Tejinder Singh of the law firm Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by international human rights advocates in support of the respondents in Perry.  And Kevin Russell of the law firm Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor.]
  • Zachary Roth at MSNBC and Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog both analyze the new report by the Constitutional Accountability Center about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s success before the Court his Term.  Cormac also covered the report in yesterday’s round-up.
  • The Associated Press and the Denver Post both have coverage of Justice Sotomayor’s visit yesterday to Denver for the opening of a state court building.

Posted in Everything Else, Round-up

Recommended Citation: Rachel Sachs, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (May. 3, 2013, 9:11 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/friday-round-up-175/