Wednesday round-up

By Conor McEvily
on Jul 20, 2011 at 8:28 am

Yesterday the Court denied a stay of execution in the case of Arizona inmate Thomas Paul West, who was scheduled to die yesterday, twenty-four years after murdering a man while robbing his home.  The Associated Press (via the Chicago Tribune), Phoenix New Times blog, and Cronkite News Online all provide coverage.

At his Jost on Justice blog, Ken Jost criticizes the Chief Justice’s recent criticism of legal scholarship.  Jost notes that although each of the other eight Justices included citations to law review articles in their opinions this Term, the Chief Justice did not.

Writing for the ABA Journal, Debra Cassens Weiss summarizes a recent story by the Los Angeles Times (which James covered in Monday’s round-up) about the Ninth Circuit’s record at the Court this Term.  And in another post for the ABA Journal, Weiss has a summary of a post by Washington Post columnist Charles Lane (to which James also linked on Monday) examining whether the Justices might have reached a different result in Kennedy v. Louisiana, the 2008 decision holding that the death penalty cannot be imposed in cases of child rape,  in light of the case of Jaycee Dugard.

Briefly

• The South Florida Gay News reports on Adar v. Smith (11-46), a case that Lyle covered last week in which a gay couple is seeking to have both of their names listed on their adopted child’s birth certificate.
• Writing for the political newsletter CounterPunch, former presidential candidate Ralph Nader criticizes the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy, arguing that in recent decisions they have  “entrench[ed] . . . a meta-corporate supremacy over the rights and remedies of individuals.”
• PrawfsBlawg reports on this month’s issue of Judicature, the official publication of the American Judicature Society, which contains an extensive analysis of President Obama’s appointments to the federal judiciary.  The authors of the report argue that the President’s “stunning achievement of promoting gender, ethnic, and racial diversity on the federal bench, including two Supreme Court appointments, is counterbalanced by a slow and problematic nominations process and partisan obstructionism resulting in relatively small numbers of confirmations.”