Round-Up

Much ado about the status of the death penalty over the weekend. At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick wrote this piece which states that “American support for the death penalty is diminishing – except at the Supreme Court.” At Volokh, both Jonathan Adler and Orin Kerr react to that article (via Sentencing Law and Policy). Meanwhile, in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Elizabeth Weil delivers an update here on how executions are being conducted in several states.

Several argument previews are also now available. At LegalTimes.com, Rick Hasen discusses the upcoming campaign finance case, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, here. At Law.com, J. Martin Acevedo talks about the Coke v. Long Island Care at Home case here. And Ross Runkel of the Supreme Court Times previews Rita, Claiborne, and Microsoft v. AT&T.

The new journal Harvard Law and Policy Review has just launched its online presence, and two pieces that deal directly with Supreme Court issues are this essay, by Melissa Patterson, about the Court’s jurisdiction in Hamdan, and this piece, by Katherine Minarik, about gender discrimination cases at the Roberts Court.

At Slate, Bonnie Goldstein’s “Hot Document” column asks “Was William Rehnquist a Racist?”

Robert Barnes of the Washington Post discusses the latest developments in the effort to televise Supreme Court proceedings here, and Matthew Frank of the National Review’s Bench Memos blog reacts here.

Finally, Emily Bazelon has a review of Jan Crawford Greenburg’s Supreme Conflict here.