on Jul 1, 2011 at 3:16 pm
The week wraps up with continuing coverage of this weekâ€™s decisions in Brown v. EMA and the Arizona campaign-finance cases.Â At the Weekly Standard (hat-tip NPR), Jeffrey H. Anderson criticizes the decision in the video-games case as â€œdepriving the people in the several states of the right to promote a virtuous citizenry and a decent and livable society.Â People who didn’t like California’s video game policy could always have fled the state, but no American can flee Justice Scalia’s opinion.â€Â The editorial board of Buffalo News has a different view of the decision, which it characterizes as â€œcorrectâ€ if ultimately â€œuncomfortable,â€ while at the Chicago Sun Times, Roger Simon describes the decision as reflecting the Courtâ€™s â€œok to violence, not sex.â€Â And a few commentators emphasize that, in any event, parents should shoulder the real burden of screening their childrenâ€™s video-game choices.Â Writing for the Chicago Tribune, movie critic Michael Phillips observes that â€œparents of all political persuasions cannot afford to leave this ongoing debate to chance.Â Or ignorance of what our kids are soaking up down there in the rec room,â€ while the editorial board of the Seattle Times similarly issues â€œa reminder to Mom and Dad that, ultimately, they are responsible for the games their children play.â€
The Courtâ€™s decision in the Arizona campaign-finance cases continued to garner coverage and commentary as well.Â In an op-ed for the Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne criticizes the holding, and the Court overall, for what he describes as its â€œcontinuing defense of the powerful.â€Â And Post writer T.W. Farnam explains why â€œthe decision does not signal that the court is ready to reject all public financing for elections.â€Â
The end-of-term retrospectives also continue.Â Lyle Denniston reviews the Term for this blog, while at NPR, Nina Totenberg identifies the two â€œwinnersâ€ of the Term:Â business and the First Amendment.Â The editorial board at the Las Vegas Review-Journal echoes that sentiment with regard to the First Amendment.Â At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr describes â€œan unprecedented dynamic [that] shaped the U.S. Supreme Court term that ended this weekâ€:Â he explains that the Courtâ€™s newest Justices â€œreward[ed] the men who appointed them with consistent and predictable votes.â€Â Â Â
At USA Today, Joan Biskupic has an interview with Justice Ginsburg, who â€“ among other things â€“ expresses the belief that the majorityâ€™s decision in Connick v. Thompson, reversing an award in favor of a death-row inmate who was convicted after prosecutors failed to turn over blood evidence, was â€œnot just wrong but egregiously so.â€Â At the New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen discusses why the Courtâ€™s most recent Term â€œwould have looked very different if Justice Sandra Day Oâ€™Connor were still on the bench.â€Â And after briefly reviewing some of the Courtâ€™s major decisions, the editorial board of the New York Times urges the Court to â€œaddress doubts about the courtâ€™s legitimacy by making themselves accountable to the code of conduct [of the rest of the federal judiciary].Â That would make their rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and, as a result, convincing as law.â€Â Â
- At the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler discusses Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which the Court recently granted cert.Â
- At the WSJ Law Blog, Nathan Koppel reports on the Court’s denial of cert. in the Philip Morris case, in which Justice Scalia had issued a stay of the $270 million verdict last fall.