Wednesday round-up
In Slate, Lara Bazelon suggests that Donald Trump’s “ability to turn the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for the right wing rests on two unknowns: whether he will have the opportunity to make a second appointment to replace a member of the court’s liberal wing and, if so, whether Chief Justice John Roberts is willing to march in lockstep with four conservative ideologues.” Advice and Consent (podcast) features a discussion about whether Senate Democrats might register their dissent over Republican treatment of Chief Judge Merrick Garland by filibustering a Trump nomination. At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that a New Mexico lawyer whose attempt to force the Senate to act on the Garland nomination was rejected by a federal trial court for procedural reasons has appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; the lawyer “has not been demanding a specific outcome on the Garland nomination, but he is seeking an up-or-down vote in the post-election Senate session.”
Briefly:
- At Reuters, Allison Frankel discusses Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, an upcoming case involving the scope of federal judges’ inherent power to impose sanctions during litigation, noting that “the current court is going to have to reconcile” “two seemingly divergent takes on” the issue that were set forth in prior cases.
- In Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro interviews a lawyer whose view that the late Justice Antonin Scalia “harmed his own legacy with language in his opinions that lacked empathy and was hurtful to segments of the public” sounded a note of dissent at the recent Federalist Society convention celebrating Scalia.
- At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that Wisconsin officials have announced that they plan to appeal to the Supreme Court a trial court ruling invalidating the state’s redistricting plan as unconstitutional “partisan gerrymandering,” noting that the “case probably will reach the Court for action after there is a ninth Justice to fill the existing vacancy on the bench.”
- In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro gives two thumbs up to “Loving,” a new movie that tells the story behind the Supreme Court’s landmark case that struck down state laws banning interracial marriage; according to Mauro, the film makes “it abundantly clear that the Supreme Court is the crucible where basic rights are protected—or not.”
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