on May 25, 2010 at 11:00 am
Note: Please see yesterdayâ€™s evening round-up for more coverage of Mondayâ€™s opinions and orders at the Court.
In the wake of yesterdayâ€™s decision in American Needle, Inc. v. NFL, Jarrett Bell of USA Today and W.D. Cornwell at the Huffington Post discuss the decisionâ€™s ramifications for future collective bargaining negotiations in the sport.Â Robert Barnes and Mark Maske of the Washington Post also have coverage of the decision.
Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor and Adam Liptak of the New York Times analyze the opinion in Lewis v. City of Chicago, another of yesterdayâ€™s decisions. At the Chicago Tribune, Cynthia Dizikes discusses how the â€œcostly defeatâ€ will affect future hiring for the fire department and for city employers in general.
In nomination news, Paul Bedard of the USNRW Washington Whispers blog reports on the letter sent recently to the Senate Judiciary Committee by National Archivist David Ferriero, who promised members of the Committee that memos written by Elena Kagan during her time in the Clinton White House would be provided beginning on June 4.Â Julie Hirschfield Davis of the AP reports on statements made yesterday by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, who warned that he would attempt to slow the confirmation process if senators did not receive timely access to the files. Meredith Shiner of Politico reports on criticism by Sessions of Kaganâ€™s decision to bar military recruiters from Harvard; Sessions conceded, however, that the issue would not be â€œtheâ€ deciding factor in determining whether Kagan should be confirmed. Ariane de Vogue of ABC News also reports on Sessionsâ€™ comments.Â At the New York Daily News, James Gordon Meek reports on criticism leveled at Kagan by Senator John Cornyn, who characterized Kaganâ€™s public disagreement with the Courtâ€™s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC as a â€œdisregardâ€ for freedom of speech.
Meanwhile, Bennett Roth of Roll Call reports on interest groupsâ€™ use of the Internet and social networking sites to influence the nomination process.Â At NPR, Ari Shapiro reports on the relatively high level of involvement of the Obama Administration in preparing Kagan for the confirmation process.
In the first of a pair of editorials, the editorial board of the Washington Times criticizes what it describes as Kaganâ€™s â€œjudge-centric view of government powerâ€; the editorial concludes that â€œa vote for Ms. Kagan would be a vote against moderation and in favor of liberal social action.â€Â In another piece, the editorial board questions Kaganâ€™s views on the role of foreign law in American jurisprudence and calls on senators to â€œquestion Ms. Kagan in great depthâ€ on the subject during confirmation hearings.
At Slate, Richard Hasen disputes the argument that Kagan would be willing to allow the government to ban books and pamphlets critical of the government.Â Hasen calls the idea a politically motivated â€œdistortionâ€ of her remarks in Citizens United oral argument, and he concludes that â€œthe whole book-banning argumentâ€¦turns out to be no more than political theater to beat up on the presidentâ€™s nominee, and on the president by proxy.â€Â Marvin Ammori of Balkinization posts a lengthy analysis of Kaganâ€™s previous criticism, both in her earlier writings and during her tenure as Solicitor General, of â€œanti-distortionâ€ rationales used to restrict free speech.
Finally, at the New York Times, Charlie Savage and Lisa Faye Petak look at Kaganâ€™s grades as a first-year law student at Harvard, noting that a B and B-minus during her fall semester were the lowest grades of her law school tenure.
- In the wake of last weekâ€™s opinion in U.S. v. Comstock, the editorial board of the L.A. Times criticizes the practice of using the â€œcivil commitment process as a backdoor way of prolonging a criminal sentence.â€Â The board urges the Court to â€œaddress the question left hanging by last weekâ€™s decisionâ€:Â whether extending an offenderâ€™s confinement requires â€œthe same level of proof as convicting him in the first place.â€
- At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh reviews the Courtâ€™s opinion in Hustler v. Falwell to conclude that allowing liability for â€œsupposedly outrageous speech that recklessly inflicts severe emotional distressâ€ in Snyder v. Phelps is a subjective standard that would restrict other forms of speech that may be â€œan important part of public debate.â€
- In light of recent admissions by some Justices that they were unfamiliar with Twitter and some other social media sites, Andrew Cohen of Politics Daily takes a lighthearted look at what some members of the Court might share in 140 characters or fewer.