Friday round-up

Briefly:

• For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[c]ases challenging the timing, methods, funding and providers of abortion are headed inexorably toward the high court at a time when Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues are seeking a lower profile.”
• At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports that Justice Elena Kagan said Wednesday that “[l]ife tenure for U.S. Supreme Court justices is a good thing, … but she also sees possible merit in switching to 18-year terms so that ‘no single nomination would be a life or death thing.’”
• For The Washington Post, Ann Marimow reports that in an appearance across town that same day, “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg blamed the polarization of the nation’s judicial confirmation process on a lack of bipartisanship and collegiality in Congress.”

• At truthdig, Bill Blum worries about the implications “for everyone concerned with justice and equality under the law” of Chief Justice John Roberts’ apparent new role as the “swing” justice, noting that “[e]ven before [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh’s appointment, the Roberts court was hardly liberal.”
• At The American Prospect, Simon Lazarus observes that in a recent pre-midterms poll, “the issue most cited as ‘extremely important’ was the ‘Supreme Court and other judicial nominations,’” and he outlines strategies Democrats could use to “turn the courts into a voting issue.”
• At National Review, John Yoo and James Phillips argue that if “Kavanaugh is to justify the efforts of the Trump White House, Senate Republicans, and supporters nationwide to confirm him, he should begin by taming the administrative state.”

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!