Monday round-up

AMY HOWE JUL 18, 2016 10:49 AM

Coverage relating to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s remarks about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, and her later comments indicating that her remarks were “ill-advised,” comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg, who interviewed Ginsburg; commentary comes from Kenneth Jost, who at Jost on Justice suggests that the American Civil Liberties Union has taken “the debate about Donald Trump in the direction that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg might have been able to if she had gone beyond off-hand comments to a succession of three reporters”; Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post, who argues that Ginsburg’s remarks “were bad for the Supreme Court and, consequently, for the country”; and Fred Hiatt, who in another op-ed for The Washington Post contends that “it’s worth asking” what Ginsburg’s “brief bout of Trump Derangement Syndrome says about our system’s ability to withstand four years of a Trump presidency.”

Commentary on the announcement by New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady that he will not seek relief from the Supreme Court in the “Deflategate” controversy comes from Matt Bonesteel in The Washington Post and Nathaniel Grow at the Sports Law Blog.

Briefly:

• In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, President Barack Obama urges the Senate to confirm Chief Judge Merrick Garland, arguing that the country needs “senators to demonstrate that, once again, America has the capacity to rise above disagreements and maintain a fidelity to the values that, for 240 years, have made this extraordinary experiment a success.”
• In the wake of the attacks in Nice, Tony Mauro reports at Law.com (subscription required) on the Justices’ overseas travel and notes that, “as with the rest of society, security concerns are intruding on their serene tradition.”
• More Perfect (podcast) looks back at the case of James Batson, the defendant in the historic jury selection case, and suggests that, although the Court’s ruling “was supposed to prevent race-based jury selection” it “may have only made the problem worse.”
• In commentary at Federal Regulations Advisor, Leland Beck observes that, although the Court “declined or was unable to resolve several regulatory issues in the Term just ended,” “its few substantive decisions set in motion significant changes in the regulatory process.”

Remember, we rely exclusively on our readers to send us links for our 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.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY