on Sep 8, 2010 at 9:44 am
Adam Liptakâ€™s report for the New York Times on polarization in the hiring of Supreme Court clerks (covered in yesterdayâ€™s round-up) attracted significant attention in the blogosphere. The WSJ Law Blog summarizes Liptakâ€™s article, while the Harvard Crimsonâ€™s Flyby blog charts the number of Harvard Law alums who serve as clerks at the Court each year. At Balkinization, Jason Mazzone responds to Liptak, arguing that his â€œclaim about increased ideological hiring is exaggeratedâ€ because it does not account for an increase in the proportion of court of appeals judges nominated by Republican presidents â€“ from thirty-seven percent in 1980 to fifty-seven percent today. At the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr also responds.Â He argues that â€œthe ideology of law clerks roughly matches that of the Justices because the Justices are trying to solve the principal-agent problemâ€ â€“ that is, when a Justice and a clerk are ideologically in sync, â€œthe Justice[ has] more confidence that [his or her] law clerks will be faithful agents without the Justice having to engage in costly monitoring of law clerk performance.â€
- At ACSblog, Piper Hoffman argues that the Supreme Court should deny certiorari in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, â€œthe largest class action in history.â€
- At PrawfsBlawg, Brendan Maher considers why no modern Supreme Court nominee has been under forty years old (namely, â€œinexperience and small sample sizeâ€).
- According to a report by the Associated Press (via the Chicago Tribune), retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day Oâ€™Connor â€“ who has long been critical of judicial elections â€“ is scheduled to speak today in Iowa at a panel discussion that is intended as a response to a campaign to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices who supported a decision that legalized gay marriage in the state.Â .
- Constitutional Law Prof Blog describes a new Second Circuit decision applying and extending the Supreme Courtâ€™s decision in last Termâ€™s Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, in which the Court upheld several sections of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 against a First Amendment challenge.