on Jul 15, 2011 at 8:30 am
Reviews of the just-ended Term continue.Â The Costa Mesa Daily Pilot reports on one such â€œTerm in Reviewâ€ panel, at the University of California-Irvine School of Law (which Conor covered in Wednesdayâ€™s round-up), while Lyle Denniston of this blog participated in an event at the National Constitution Center last week (audio is available here).
Other journalists and commentators focus on specific recent decisions of the Court, as well as the effects of those decisions. Writing in the Chicago Tribune, E.J. Dionne criticizes the Courtâ€™s recent refusal to stay the execution of Mexican national Humberto Leal, arguing that â€œthe indifference that five U.S. Supreme Court justices have shownâ€ to the rule of law is â€œremarkable.â€ Â At Justia.comâ€™s Verdict, Sherry F. Colb analyzes the Courtâ€™s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence and argues that the Courtâ€™s â€œCrawford [v. Washington] experiment has failedâ€:Â â€œso long as the Court adheres to Crawford,â€ she contends, â€œit promises more confusion and indeterminacy for the foreseeable future.â€Â Â Â At Harvardâ€™s Citizen Media Law Project, Timothy Lamoureux discusses what he describes as the â€œreal issueâ€ Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association:Â â€œwhether video games are art (and protected speech) or an activity (and subject to regulation).â€ Â Â David Zahniser of the Los Angeles Times reports on the effects that the Courtâ€™s decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Clubâ€™s Freedom PAC v. Bennett, in which the Court invalidated Arizonaâ€™s matching funds campaign finance scheme, may have on a similar program in Los Angeles. And finally, at the San Antonio Express News, Gene Policinski argues that this Term â€œthe Court reminded us that our free-speech rights donâ€™t rest on values or concerns of the moment, nor are they subject toâ€¦a balancing test of the value of a particular category of speech against its impact inÂ society.â€
- Later this month, Justice Breyer will make his first public appearance in Vermont since being named to the Court in 1994, the Vermont Journalism Trust reports.
- The First Amendment Center reports on the results of its national survey, including the fact that seventy-eight percent of poll respondents believe that Supreme Court proceedings should be televised.