At the WSJ Law Blog, Ashby Jones recaps Dahlia Lithwick"™s recent article (which Amanda covered in yesterday"™s round-up) on the possible effects of having three women on the Court.  Meanwhile, in a second post at Slate, Lithwick discusses Justice Ginsburg"™s recent appearance at the Tenth Circuit Judicial Conference in Colorado Springs, during which the Justice read a speech prepared by her late husband for the event.  Noting that Justice Ginsburg has "almost single-handedly convinced the courts and legislatures to do away with gender classifications," Lithwick concludes that the Justice "is still the mother of all grizzlies to me."

Briefly:

  • The editorial board of the New York Times discusses the cert. petition filed by Wal-Mart last week, and it urges the Court to categorize the roughly one million women who have worked for the corporation as a class, which would give them the opportunity to make a case against Wal-Mart"™s employment practices.
  • JURIST reports on a cert. petition filed Friday by Microsoft Corporation appealing a lower court ruling finding the company guilty of patent infringement.  Patently-O also has coverage of the Microsoft appeal.
  • At USA Today, Joan Biskupic previews Snyder v. Phelps, in which the Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in October.
  • ACSblog reports that during the recent Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, Justice Kennedy lamented the slow pace of judicial confirmations, urging the public to "understand that the excellence of the federal judiciary is at risk."
  • ACSblog also covers a speech by Senator Sherrod Brown at Ohio State University"™s Moritz College of Law in which the Senator criticized the Court"™s January decision in Citizens United.
  • At Concurring Opinions, Daniel Solove interviews Ronald Collins about his new book on the late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.  In the interview, Collins highlights Holmes"™s five most significant writings and addresses the late Justice"™s changing approach to the First Amendment.
  • Finally, Eugene Volokh contrasts two recent Supreme Court decisions – McDonald v. Chicago and Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Group – at the Volokh Conspiracy, highlighting their differing approaches to the Excessive Fines Clause.

Posted in Round-up