Friday round-up

By Amy Howe
on Mar 4, 2016 at 6:15 am

There is still more coverage of Wednesday’s oral arguments in the challenge to Texas’s abortion regulations, from Bill Mears of Fox News.  Commentary comes from Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, Steven Mazie of The Economist (who also has an explainer on changes in abortion law), Leah Litman at casetext, Greg Lipper at Bill of Health, Mary Ziegler at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, and David Gans in New Republic.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia and the battle over his successor also continue to generate commentary.  At Constitution Daily, Elizabeth Wydra and Brianne Gorod look at Scalia’s “liberal legacy,” while in The Economist, Steven Mazie responds to Senator Charles Grassley’s post on this blog.  And Jennifer Agiesta of CNN discusses a CNN/ORC poll indicating that “[m]ost Americans want to see President Barack Obama nominate someone to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, but the public is divided on what ideological tilt they’d prefer to see in a nominee.”

Briefly:

• At Liberty Blog, Mark Miller collects the sixteen amicus briefs that were filed in support of the company in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., arguing that, when “taken together, they send an overwhelming message to the Court: justice requires that Hawkes, and all landowners, have access to the courts when they face an overreaching, land-grabbing federal government.”
• In The Morning Call, Brianne Gorod weighs in on the judicial-recusal case Williams v. Pennsylvania, concluding that “it’s clear what the justices should do: They should recognize that Chief Justice Castille’s participation in Williams’ case was a clear violation of the Constitution.”
• NFIB urges the Court to grant review in Florida Bankers Association v. Department of Treasury, arguing that the decision below “sets a dangerous precedent in so far is forecloses pre-enforcement challenges to regulations that small business might seek to challenge on statutory or constitutional grounds in the future.”