Monday round-up

In the wake of President Obamas endorsement of same-sex marriage, the weekends coverage focused on the prospect that the issue could reach the Court this year. David Ingram of Reuters reports on two same-sex marriage cases: the constitutional challenge to Californias Proposition 8 and a Massachusetts case seeking to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), while Jess Bravin of theWall Street Journal discusses the potential political pressures that President Obama would face when the issue reaches the Court.

Briefly:

• In an op-ed for theBoston Review, Pam Karlan criticizes a second form of assertiveness displayed by the Roberts Court: the Court is not simply deciding which cases to hear, but is also directing the parties to address issues the justices want to take up.
• AtUPI, Michael Kirkland discusses the impact of the Courts ruling inCitizens United v. FEC, reporting that [t]he 2012 elections are awash in secret money, with donors accountable to no one, while the national media sleeps and few voters seem to care.
• In theLos Angeles Times, David Savage reviews criticism of Solicitor General Donald Verrillis performance at oral arguments this Term.
• In an op-ed for theNew York Times, Richard Thaler argues that [g]iven how flimsy slippery-slope arguments can be, it is downright scary that they might play an important role in the Supreme Court decision on the new health care law.
• In an op-ed for theDaily Progress,Donald Nuechterlein urges the Court to uphold the main provisions of S.B. 1070, the state immigration law at issue in Arizona v. United States, butto reject its more punitive features, in the hope that [t]his outcome might then spur Congress, in its next session, to be serious about compromising around a more comprehensive solution to this vexing immigration dilemma.