Yesterday the Justices heard oral arguments in two consolidated energy-regulation cases, Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing and CPV Maryland, LLC v. Talen Energy Marketing. Lyle Denniston covered the oral argument for this blog.

Yesterday Mike DeBonis and Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post reported that Obama is considering Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court. At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser characterizes Obama’s consideration of Sandoval as “surprising, given the governor’s past statements on the Affordable Care Act” – namely, personally asking the Supreme Court to repeal it. Amber Phillips, for The Washington Post, suggests that “if anyone could get the Senate to compromise, it might be Sandoval.”

Ruth Marcus, in an op-ed for The Washington Post, urges President Barack Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts to take action to resolve the “ceaseless cycles of partisan warfare,” even acknowledging that a “president willingly ceding power and influence is as antithetical to the politician’s instinct as a justice thrusting himself into a raging political battle is to the judicial temperament.” In an op-ed for MSNBC, Gabe Roth discusses Roberts’s “important – and not unprecedented – role to play in ensuring the continued legitimacy of his court.” At ACSblog, Richard Painter argues that there is “no Election Day – much less election year – exception to” “the power, and the responsibility, … to nominate and confirm judges and other officers to fill vacant positions.” At Gawker, Jay Willis suggests that “by considering and perhaps even confirming President Obama’s nominee, Republicans concede the battle but earn a chance to win the war.” Lastly, at Article 8, Daniel Hensel provides “a bit of guidance that can provide some clarity” on the appointment process.

On Tuesday the Justices heard oral arguments in the Hobbs Act case Taylor v. United States. Rory Little analyzed the arguments for this blog. In his column for The Atlantic, Garrett Epps posits that “[p]erhaps, when the justices get into conference, they can torture this sketchy record until it presents some significant issue of over-criminalization, but I can’t see it.”

Erik Eckholm of The New York Times considers consequences for abortion clinics that could result from the decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a challenge to Texas abortion regulations. Greg Stohr for Bloomberg Politics discusses the prospect of a “new tint” to the case after Justice Scalia’s death, which “eliminates the possibility of a 5-4 anti-abortion victory that would have nationwide implications.”


Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Thursday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 25, 2016, 11:53 AM),