Wednesday round-up

By Joshua Matz
on Jul 27, 2011 at 8:17 am

Briefly:

• At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger reports on an opinion by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holding that the Confrontation Clause rule established by the Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts is not retroactive on collateral review in the case of Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz. (The reason? Same defendant, different criminal conviction.)
• David Strauss reviews the recent biography of Justice Brennan (written by Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel) in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. Noting that “[t]he great liberal decisions of the Warren Court seem far away,” and that “it is not even clear what a liberal agenda for the Supreme Court would look like,” Strauss argues that this Brennan biography “does give us, with depth and clarity, a picture of an era when progressive ideas were ascendant on the Court—and of the conservative reaction precipitated by that era.”
• Writing at PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman previews a “Civil Procedure Roundtable” that will be held on Friday. He posts a link to his essay on the Court and civil procedure, in which he argues that “the Roberts Court seems to be making civil procedure its doctrinal project, deciding more than 20 cases in areas that are part of the core Civ Pro course (even more if you include Fed Courts topics such as standing), making some pretty significant doctrinal statements and changes in doing so.”
• Opinio Juris is hosting a discussion of international law and the Court, with commentary by a panel of experts and reactions to a forthcoming book on the subject entitled The U.S. Supreme Court and International Law: Continuity and Change.
• Writing at Verdict, Sherry F. Colb discusses the Court’s recent decision in Davis v. United States, holding that evidence obtained through a search that was legal when it was conducted will not be subject to the exclusionary rule. She contends that although “the Court’s decision is not entirely illogical, it depends on a view of the exclusionary rule—including its purpose and its effect—that leaves a lot to be desired.”