Tuesday round-up

With a week before his hearing in the Senate, Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh continues to garner coverage. Tony Mauro for The National Law Journal reports that 41 appellate advocates sent the Senate Judiciary Committee a letter expressing “strong support” for Kavanaugh. Joan Biskupic of CNN reports that Kavanaugh’s dissent in the case of a SeaWorld trainer attacked by a whale may best exemplify his “deep suspicion of government regulation,” a view which “can have real world consequences for federal safeguards covering workers, consumers and the environment.”

Commentary on Kavanaugh’s nomination comes from Ashley Baker, in an op-ed for The Hill, who defends Kavanaugh’s past rulings in administrative law: Baker argues that Kavanaugh “consistently stressed the importance of the three-part separation of powers envisioned by the founding fathers.” Miles Mogulescu at OurFuture.org expresses concern about Kavanaugh’s record and views and asks whether there is “even one Republican willing to stand up” and prevent his confirmation.

High-profile cases may be on the way for next term. Zack Ford of ThinkProgress writes that 16 states filed an amicus brief recommending that the Supreme Court review the case of a transgender employee fired for transitioning and notes that “there has already been significant backlash against the brief.” At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen discusses a “case with potentially national implications both short term and long”: Common Cause v. Rucho, in which a three-judge district court in North Carolina held that the state’s congressional redistricting plan is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Briefly:

• C-SPAN releases results of polling about the Supreme Court that “suggests high public interest in the Court and strong understanding of the Court’s influence on our society”; in particular, the results include findings that 64 percent of respondents “favor television cameras in the Supreme Court” and 71 percent “agree that the Supreme Court should allow same-day release of audio recordings of its oral arguments if the Justices continue to block cameras in the courtroom.”
• At SCOTUS OA, Tonja Jacobi and Matthew Sag parse polite and formal language in Supreme Court oral arguments.
• In an op-ed at Business Insider, Matthew Stanford argues that although the “supposed benefits of term limits” for Supreme Court justices are “alluring,” they “won’t depoliticize the selection process.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!