Friday round-up

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia continues to generate coverage and commentary. At Bloomberg BNA, Rebecca Wilhelm assesses Scalias influence on environmental law through his standing and administrative law jurisprudence. Marci Hamilton of Hamilton and Griffin on Rights defends Scalias majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith which, she argues, captures the genius of our First Amendment free exercise protection. At The Marshall Project, David Carroll criticizes Scalias right-to-counsel jurisprudence and Jonathan Smith denounces Scalias apparent lack of concern about police accountability. In a podcast for the National Constitution Centers blog, Constitution Daily, Lawrence Lessig and Steven Calabresi swap stories and reflect on the Justices constitutional legacy. For Bloomberg BNAs Federal Tax Blog, Syd Gernstein compiles quotations from some of Scalias written opinions that demonstrate his wit and sarcasm.

In an op-ed at the Huffington Post, Nan Aron argues that the vacancy left by Scalias death has engendered a moment of clarity, forcing the voters and candidates to confront directly what we have long believed to be true: the future of the Supreme Court is the single most important issue in the election of 2016. For Mediaite, Josh Feldman reports on a recent Fox News poll that finds a pretty big majority wants President Obama and the Senate to act immediately on filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by Antonin Scalias death. The editorial board for the Los Angeles Times argues that resolute opposition to confirming a replacement before the next presidential election should collapse under the weight of its unreasonableness and that President Barack Obama should nominate someone whose integrity, intelligence and judicial temperament will make it hard for Republicans to vote no. Nick Gass reports for Politico that Vice President Joe Biden recently suggested that the president will nominate a judge who has previously received significant confirmation support from Republicans.

Steven Mazie, at The Economist, comments that Scalias replacement will join a court that has never been so neatly sorted along ideological lines, while at Greenwire (subscription may be required), Robin Bravender assesses how, depending on the party of the nominating president, Scalias replacement could influence environmental regulations.

Briefly:

• Anthony Adragna of Bloomberg BNA reports that Scalias passing immediately increases the odds the Environmental Protection Agencys Clean Power Plan survives judicial review.
• At CNN, Michael Render (aka rapper Killer Mike) and Erik Nielson urge the Court to grant review in Bell v. Itawamba County School Board, a case that they describe as raising serious questions about students First Amendment protections as well as broader questions about the role of race in determining when those protections apply.
• The Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School previews next weeks arguments in Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States and Utah v. Strieff.
• For The Washington Post, Charles Lane reviews Imbeciles, Adam Cohens book about Buck v. Bell, in which the Court approved Virginias involuntary-sterilization law.