on Jul 5, 2011 at 8:50 am
Writing for UPI, Michael Kirkland concludes that the Term â€œwill go down in the history books as a triumph for the First Amendment,â€ and for â€œthe ongoing emergence of Justice Anthony Kennedy as one of the most powerful people in U.S. government.â€ Â Several reporters and commentators emphasize the Courtâ€™s pro-business rulings:Â at the San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko deems the Term especially noteworthy for its pro-business rulings, while Dahlia Lithwick of Slate describes the Term as â€œChristmas in July for big business,â€ explaining that â€œslowly but surely, the Supreme Court is giving corporate America a handbook on how to engage in misconduct.â€ But at Bloomberg, Ramesh Ponnuru rejects the characterization of the Roberts Court as pro-business and argues that the lack of a pro-business slant is a â€œshame,â€ because the â€œprotection of commerce should be among [the Courtâ€™s] primary aims.â€
Several articles explored the effects that the Courtâ€™s decision in the Arizona campaign finance cases could have on similar laws in San Francisco (the San Francisco Chronicle), New York City (the New York Post) and North Carolina (the Greensboro News-Record).Â Writing for the Washington Post, George Will applauds the decision as â€œpredictable, but gratifying.â€Â By contrast, Ken Jost â€“ writing for his Jost on Justice blog â€“ argues that â€œno decision better illustrates the conservativesâ€™ disconnect with the real worldâ€ than the Arizona ruling. And writing at his Dorf on Law blog, Mike Dorf focuses on Justice Kaganâ€™s dissent in the case, as does Frank Astin at the New Jersey Star-Ledger.
Finally, coverage of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association continued to trickle in. Robert Barnes of the Washington Post compares the application of originalist principles to the case by Justices Scalia and Thomas, while at the Miami Herald, Cal Thomas criticizes the ruling, contending that the Justices â€œlive in an unreal world.â€Â Elsewhere, one commentator opines that video games can be healthy: in a guest editorial at the Boston Globe, a child psychiatrist argues that â€œinstead of talking about ways to ban violent video games, weâ€™d be better off figuring out how to use them as a tool.â€ The editorial board of the Merced Sun-Star concludes that the Court made the right decision, and that â€œitâ€™s parentsâ€™ responsibility to regulate use by children.â€
- In honor of Independence Day, Constitutional Law Prof Blog highlights two cases from this Term that reference the Declaration of Independence.
- Justice Ginsburg comments that â€œthe president should not expect a retirement letter [from her] before 2015,â€ the Associated Press reports.
- At the Los Angeles Times, David Savage examines the contributions of Justice Thomas, twenty years after his Supreme Court nomination.