on Mar 11, 2010 at 9:37 am
Today, the debate continues over remarks made Tuesday at the University of Alabama by Chief Justice John Roberts, who responded to a question regarding President Obamaâ€™s criticism of the Courtâ€™s Citizens United ruling by noting that although anyone is free to criticize the Court, the atmosphere at Januaryâ€™s State of the Union Address was â€œvery troubling.â€Â Ashby Jones at the WSJ Law Blog reports on the Chief Justiceâ€™s comments, while at the Huffington Post, James Sample examines both the Courtâ€™s ruling in Citizens and the Chief Justiceâ€™s decision to express his displeasure with President Obamaâ€™s assessment.Â Paul Horwitz, writing for PrawfsBlawg, also recaps the University of Alabama speech and suggests that the tradition of the justices attending the State of the Union address be replaced by â€œan annual private dinner for the Court at the White House.â€Â At the Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Anne Kornblut observe that the President and the Court have â€œwaded again into unfamiliar and strikingly personal territory,â€ while at the Postâ€™s Post-Partisan Blog, Eva Rodriguez jokes that perhaps Chief Justice Roberts should sell his State of the Union ticket next year.
Characterizing the dispute as â€œridiculousâ€ and arguing that the administration seems to â€œthink it should always have the last word,â€ Jan Crawford opines at CBS that the president might be working against his own interests by challenging the Court.Â At the Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports on the reaction of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to the Chief Justiceâ€™s remarks, while Fox News reports that the Chief Justiceâ€™s remarks garnered support from Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions.Â Dahlia Lithwick, writing for Slate, chides Chief Justice Roberts for â€œlobbing long-distance partisan attacks,â€ a sentiment seconded by Post-Partisanâ€™s Jo-Ann Armao.Â ACSblog and Above the Law also have coverage of the Chief Justiceâ€™s remarks, and a podcast of his speech is available via How Appealing.
JURIST reports on a hearing held Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee to address new legislative efforts directed at limiting the effects of the Citizens United ruling. Following the hearing, the Constitutional Accountability Center released a report (available at ACSblog) on corporate personhood and the Constitution.Â At its own blog, the Center for Competitive Politics also recaps some highlights from the hearing.
Continuing the post-game analysis of McDonald v. Chicago, Tony Mauro reports for Law.com on the coalition of academics and advocacy groups â€“ both liberal and conservative â€“ which agreed that the petitioners should pursue the Privileges or Immunities Clause strategy; describing the Courtâ€™s reaction to the strategy at oral argument, Mauro observes that â€œ[i]n the space of a dramatic few minutes, an entire movement in the law seemingly crashed and burned.â€
At Vanity Fair, Andrew Cohen has a piece on Kansas-based preacher Fred Phelps, one of the respondents in Snyder v. Phelps, in which the Court granted cert. on Monday.Â Characterizing Phelpsâ€™s speech as â€œcruel,â€ Cohen predicts that the Court will reinstate a monetary award granted to the servicemanâ€™s family after they convinced a trial court that they were unable to avoid Phelpsâ€™s message while attending the funeral.