Friday round-up

Briefly:

• In an article published by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, SCOTUSblog Books Editor Ronald Collins examines the Supreme Court’s recent decision on robocalls in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants and argues that the decision “turned the First Amendment on its head and then left it there.” Collins then describes how an amicus brief submitted by seasoned Supreme Court litigator Paul Clement offers a roadmap for resolving similar future disputes in a way that is more closely tied to the text of the First Amendment.
• At the SMU Law Review Forum, Christian Talley analyzes the ongoing battle over stare decisis, concluding that “[c]ontinuous and profound modification of a precedent casts doubt on the quality of the Court’s original reasoning and erodes the connection between earlier and later cases, thus weakening the stare decisis weight due the precedent upon its reconsideration.”
• In Social Science Quarterly, Christopher Krewson and Jean Schroedel analyze public opinion of the Supreme Court after the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and conclude that the court’s “legitimacy was only weakly tied to Kavanaugh” while “legal qualities and moral character were more important to the public than a nominee’s political attributes.”
• At the National Memo, Bill Blum examines Chief Justice John Roberts’ long record in voting-rights litigation, including several emergency appeals this year in election-related cases tied to the coronavirus pandemic, and contends that Roberts’ performance “has been especially regrettable, but by no means surprising.”

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, please send it to roundup@scotusblog.com. Thank you!