At FindLaw, here, Edward Lazarus assesses what the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections might mean for the make-up of the Supreme Court, arguing that “the Court is at a tipping point between a significant move rightward and a radical move rightward,” and, while a Democratic president probably wouldn’t have much of an effect on the Court’s current trajectory, a Republican most certainly would. In other election-related news, Reuters reports here that, in speeches at a Planned Parenthood conference, top Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both spoke out against the Court’s ruling on late-term abortions.
Ronald Krotoszynski analyzes the importance of culture to the Morse v. Frederick decision (perhaps better known as the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” decision), suggesting that since the questions presented in the case were “as much cultural as legal questions,” one might “predict that in another culture, these questions could have different answers.” Read here how he imagines the questions might have been answered in Japan, Germany and Canada.
In the wake of the Court’s WRTL ruling, Rick Hasen, in a post on Election Law, urged the FEC to make a rule about “what kinds of ads can be funded with corporate and union money” before the 2008 election “gets into full gear.” After the FEC’s announcement today, Rick updated his post. Read both posts here.