Thursday round-up
on Oct 23, 2014 at 6:43 am
As Lyle reported for this blog yesterday, the Court released a revised version of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent from the Court’s order allowing Texas to implement its voter identification law. In the new version, Ginsburg corrected a mistake about whether a particular form of identification – issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs – would meet the requirements of the new law. Other coverage of the correction comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, who notes that it was “the erring justice herself . . . who asked the court’s public information office to announce the error.” At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger also discusses the process by which the Court modifies its opinions more generally, and he urges the Court to follow the lead of the California Supreme Court, which issues “modification orders.” And at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie criticizes the Court’s failure to explain the reasoning behind its original pre-dawn order last Saturday. He contends that, “[w]hen the stakes are this high, all the justices should follow Justice Ginsburg’s lead and stay up all night to explain to America just what they are up to and why.”
Briefly:
- At Re’s Judicata, Richard Re continues a series of posts on Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, focusing this time on the possibility of an “outside-the-box solution[] to the jurisdictional puzzle” in the case.
A friendly reminder: We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.
