on Mar 21, 2011 at 9:19 am
In this weekendâ€™s coverage of the Court:
- Kent Scheidegger of Crime and Consequences previews Davis v. United States and Tolentino v. New York, both of which are being argued this morning.Â He notes that â€œ[b]oth arise out of traffic stops for excessive noiseâ€ and that the advocates will include Caitlin Halligan, who has been nominated to the D.C. Circuit.
- At Reason magazine, Damon Root challenges the idea that the Court displays a â€œpro-corporate bias,â€ arguing instead that â€œthe Supreme Court reaches its decisions through a complicated and frequently shifting mix of the justicesâ€™ judicial philosophies, political ideologies, and personal quirks.â€ Â At the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler concurs, criticizing studies that attach â€œsimplistic labels like â€˜proâ€™ or â€˜antiâ€™ businessâ€ to individual decisions, rather than â€œevaluating how various decisions approach statutory interpretation, the federal-state balance, or the desirability of judicial intervention.â€
- In the New York Times, Emily Bazelon has a profile of Justice Samuel Alito, â€œthe one conservative on the Supreme Court without a flashy legal signature.â€Â Bazelon contends that Justice Alito provides â€œa window onto right-wing empathy on the court â€” and onto conservative instincts generally about who deserves our solicitude.â€
- In the Chicago Tribune, David Savage explains what could be at stake in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, which is scheduled for oral argument next week.Â He observes that a victory for Dukes â€œcould open the door for the broader use of statistics to prove job discrimination â€” and not just on behalf of women, but also for minorities or people with disabilities,â€ while â€œa win for Wal-Mart could deal a death blow to nationwide job-bias suits by ruling that employees who work in different stores and hold different jobs do not have enough in common to be a class.â€