Thursday round-up

Much of yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on whether the Court would review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry v. Brown, striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, and in particular on what role Justice Kennedy might play if the Court does take up the issue. In his column for Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman characterizes the Ninth Circuit’s opinion as a “memo to Justice Kennedy,” while Karen Gullo and Andrew Harris of Bloomberg similarly observe that Kennedy is likely to be the “fulcrum” of the Court if it decides to review the case.  Other coverage of, and commentary on, Justice Kennedy’s possible role in a Supreme Court decision comes from David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times , Carlos Ball in the Huffington Post, Daniel B. Wood of the Christian Science Monitor, and Geoffrey Fowler and Jess Bravin at the Wall Street Journal, while Orin Kerr pushes back against the Kennedy narrative at the Volokh Conspiracy. In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Erwin Chemerinsky argues that if it does grant cert., the Court is likely to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Finally, Maura Dolan of the Los Angeles Times and Howard Mintz of the San Jose Mercury News report on possible next steps for supporters of Proposition 8.

The Court refused to lift a stay of execution for an Ohio convict yesterday. A federal district judge had granted the stay (and the Sixth Circuit upheld it) because he was dissatisfied with the state’s changes to its lethal injection procedures.  James Vicini and David Bailey of Reuters have coverage, as do Andrew Welsh-Huggins of the Associated Press and Reginald Fields of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Finally, Justice Ginsburg’s recent interview on Egyptian television continues to garner commentary (video). In an op-ed for the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby responds to critics who accused Justice Ginsburg of “insulting the Constitution or being ‘mealy mouthed’ in its defense” during the interview. Ilya Somin of the Volokh Conspiracy uses Jacoby’s op-ed as a jumping-off point for a discussion of recent comments by both Justices Ginsburg and Scalia on foreign constitutions.

Briefly:

 

 

Posted in: Round-up

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY