Today’s Blog Round-up

Akin Gump summer associate Nathan Cherry has this blog round-up:

Steve Vladeck offers these thoughts on Prawfsblawg on the significance of Monday’s cert. grant in Watters v. Wachovia Bank.

Crime and Consequences, a new addition to the legal blogosphere from the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, has this to say about Hill v. McDonough and the significance of yesterday’s opinion on Woodford v. Ngo for lethal injection litigation.

Orin Kerr travels into “serious law-nerd heaven” with this lengthy post on Dixon v. United States.

Professor Doug Berman has this link to Steve Sanders’s forthcoming article on Washington v. Recuenco in the Federal Sentencing Reporter.

Steve Jabukowski has this post on the Bankruptcy Litigation Blog on Howard Delivery, describing it as a “delightful opinion” in which Scalia and Thomas reject a stricter textualist interpretation to join Ginsburg’s “bankruptcy-based prism.”

Rapanos and Carabell, the pair of cases interpreting the Clean Water Act, demonstrate Justice Kennedy’s new role on the Court as the “median voter,” especially in 4-1-4 splits. “The implications for election law are profound,” says Rick Hasen on his Election Law blog. (here)

Doug Kendall, guest writer for ACSBlog, has this to say about the Rapanos/Carabell decisions.

What effect will Samson v. California have on parolees? From suspicionless searches to subcutaneous monitoring chips, “Samson will turn out to be somewhat more important than it first appears.” Dan Filler writes this post on Concurring Opinions entitled “Parole After Samson.”

Watch the Supreme Court’s memorial service for the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, airing on C-SPAN on Saturday, June 24 at 7:00PM EDT. The service was held in the Upper Great Hall on June 15, and “speakers included U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement and Chief Justice Rehnquist’s son, Jim, along with a number of former staff members and clerks for the late chief justice.”

Orin Kerr argues that that Youngblood makes no new law, and Jason Solomon agrees on PrawfsBlawg that it was a “do-over.” (here and here)

Eugene Volokh teaches us something new by pointing out the use of a unique abbreviation in Justice Scalia’s Youngblood v. West Virginia dissent (see penultimate line of Scalia dissent). To summarize, “Verb. Sap.” = verbum sapienti. And now you know.