Thursday round-up
on Jan 3, 2019 at 7:23 am
Briefly:
- For the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing, noting that “[o]ne thing seems clear: Some 85 years after the 21st Amendment was ratified, lower courts are still eager to get further guidance from the Supreme Court.”
- In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse takes issue with Justice Clarence Thomas’ increasingly influential argument that, by refusing to hear a series of challenges to restrictions on gun ownership and use, “the justices are treating the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right.’”
- At SI Live, Daniel Leddy argues that “[t]wo recent votes by [Chief Justice John] Roberts are further evidence that he’s turning into another Anthony Kennedy.”
- In an op-ed at Forbes, Steve Denning looks at a judicial panel’s recent dismissal of judicial-misconduct claims against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that “to call this justice is to misunderstand the meaning of the term and construe it in the sense that Gilbert & Sullivan, not James Madison and the Founding Fathers of this country, intended.”
- At American Greatness, Mark Pulliam remarks that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “ultimate legacy … may be that her stubborn—and, in hindsight, ill-considered—refusal to resign while President Obama was in office may allow the Left’s nemesis, President Donald Trump, to appoint her successor.”
- The Ginsburg Tapes (podcast) looks at Ginsburg’s “debut as an oral advocate in the Supreme Court in Frontiero v. Richardson[, which] involved a challenge to a law that treated men and women serving in the military differently.”
- In an op-ed for The Baltimore Sun, Kelly Shackelford weighs in on The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to a World War I memorial shaped like a cross on public property, arguing that “[t]he Establishment Clause is designed to prohibit the state from coercing its citizens to engage in a particular religious observance — it was never meant to sanitize the public square from all traces of religion.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]
We rely 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, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!
