Wednesday round-up
on Feb 24, 2016 at 12:50 pm
Today the Justices heard oral arguments in two consolidated energy-regulation cases, Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing and CPV Maryland, LLC v. Talen Energy Marketing. Lyle Denniston previewed the case for this blog, with other coverage coming from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School.
Yesterday the Justices heard oral arguments in the Hobbs Act case Taylor v. United States. Rory Little analyzed the arguments for this blog, with additional coverage coming from Danielle Blevins of Talk Media News.
The Justices also heard oral arguments in the patent-damages cases Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. Ronald Mann analyzed the arguments for this blog, with Danielle Blevins of Talk Media News providing additional coverage. Noah Feldman of Bloomberg View comments on the case and suggests that “[w]hen the Supreme Court applies general principles of law in the patent context, it’s undermining the rational structure that the Federal Circuit is working hard to create.”
Yesterday Republicans members of the Senate Judiciary Committee promised to refuse to hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee proposed by President Barack Obama. Lyle Denniston reported on the declaration for this blog, with other coverage coming from Alexander Bolton at The Hill. Jonathan Bernstein weighs in at Bloomberg View, suggesting that “the more the Republicans cement their reputation as unreasonably obstructionist, the more they will appear at fault in future showdowns.” At ACSblog, Neil Kinkopf, discussing then-Senator Joe Biden making a similar refusal in 1992, argues that while “[i]t is great sport to unearth contradicting statements by political figures,” “they have no value at all in understanding the Constitution.”
The Pew Research Center released results from a poll indicating that a majority of the public wants the Senate to act on President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, among other findings. Josh Blackman and Ilya Shapiro, in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, suggest that the negative consequences of a vacancy on the Court are over-hyped and note that in fifteen vacancies since World War II “the court managed its docket without a hitch.” Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine wonders how current political gridlock will affect the Court, because its “legitimacy resides in its aura of being something grander and more trustworthy than a smaller Senate whose members enjoy lifetime appointments.” For E&E Daily Kevin Bogardus reports that “environmental groups have begun to prime their advocacy game in support of President Obama’s looming Supreme Court nominee,” while Tom Clark at Vox suggests “progressives might benefit from keeping the current vacancy open.”
On Monday the Justices heard oral arguments in Utah v. Strieff, a case involving the scope of the exclusionary rule. Orin Kerr analyzed the arguments for this blog, while at Slate Mark Stern reports that “Sotomayor’s aggressiveness on Monday suggests that, in the long run, she believes her side has the winning hand.”
Monday was also the Court’s first day back in session since the death of Antonin Scalia. Lyle Denniston covered Chief Justice John Roberts’s tribute to the late Justice for this blog, while Mark Walsh provided a “view” from the Courtroom for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes of The Washington Post and Adam Liptak of The New York Times.
At ACSblog, Joseph Thai discusses the broad reach of Scalia’s originalism but also contends that “at the Supreme Court itself – the institution that Justice Scalia so long served and sought to transform – originalism’s moment seems over.” For Notice & Comment, Adam White analyzes Scalia’s legacy of regulatory jurisprudence and suggests that “his death abruptly cut short his late-career reconsiderations of the administrative state.” At Dubitante, Justin Sadowsky provides further commentary on Scalia’s legacy.
Briefly:
- Adam Liptak of The New York Times discusses the prominence in Court opinions of quotations from Bob Dylan, “long the most cited songwriter in judicial opinions.”
- Michael Bailey at Vox discusses different ways to measure the ideology of Supreme Court Justices and notes that “varying approaches produce a surprisingly large range of ways to view the Roberts Court.”
- Mark Walsh of Education Week previews “several high-profile education cases” the Justices will consider in their private Conference Friday.
- At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser discusses the implications of Scalia’s death for Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a challenge to Texas abortion regulations, which, on the verge of being a “crowning achievement” for the pro-life movement, may result in a “demoralizing defeat.”
