on Nov 29, 2007 at 4:25 pm
The University of Pennsylvania Law Review Penumbra currently features an online debate between Professors Bradley Smith (Capital University Law School) and Edward Foley (Moritz College of Law-Ohio State University) on voter identification requirements and Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, see here.Â The first sentence of the debate sets the stage by quoting SCOTUSblog’s own Lyle Denniston on the importance of the Crawford case.Â The debate is well worth reading, particularly for those interested in election law issues.
Bradford Mank (University of Cincinnati College of Law) has posted “Should States have Greater Standing Rights than Ordinary Citizens: Massachusetts v. EPA‘s New Standing Test for States” on SSRN, see here. Â Professor Mank discusses the impact of the Court’s loosening of the standing requirements for states in the Massachusetts v. EPA decision that the Court decided last Term.Â As you may remember, I previously highlighted a paper co-authored by Professors Kathryn Watts (University of Washington School of Law) and Amy Wildermuth (University of Utah-SJ Quinney College of Law) on the non-jurisdictional aspects of the decision in a June academic round-up, see here.
Timothy O’Neill (John Marshall Law School) has posted an interesting new essay on SSRN entitled, “The Stepford Justices: The Need for Experiential Diversity on the Roberts Court,” see here.Â Among other things, the essay analyzes the present experiential homogeneity on the Supreme Court–that is, all nine Justices have previously served on the United States Courts of Appeals–and traces it back to the failed nomination of Robert Bork.Â O’Neill argues that it is particularly disturbing that none of the current Justices have any prior legislative experience, given that the Court decides the constitutionality of state and federal legislation.Â O’Neill is correct that the current batch of Justices is a highly homogeneous group by historical standards.