Thursday round-up
on Jul 26, 2018 at 7:19 am
At The Hill, Max Greenwood reports that “[v]oters are near-evenly split on whether the Senate should confirm President Trump‘s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, according to a Quinnipiac University poll out Wednesday.” At Forbes, Karlyn Bowman assesses the results of several polls measuring “what … Americans want senators to consider when evaluating [Supreme Court] nominees.”
For The Wall Street Journal, Byron Tau reports that Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., “an iconoclast Republican with a libertarian streak, says he remains undecided on whether he will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the court—citing concerns about the nominee’s views on national-security issues that affect the privacy rights of Americans.” For The Hill, Jordain Carney reports that “Democrats are struggling to find an opening in their fight to sink Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination.” James Arkin and Burgess Everett report for Politico that “Democrats are determined to make exactly one Republican senator pay in November for supporting President Donald Trump’s new Supreme Court nominee: Nevada Sen. Dean Heller.”
For Law360 (subscription required), Jimmy Hoover and Michael Macagnone report that “Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are at an ‘impasse’ over how many documents U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh needs to produce from his time in the White House, a question that could determine how soon, if at all, the D.C. Circuit judge gets confirmed.” The Wall Street Journal’s Potomac Watch podcast looks at “[t]he fight over documents in Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”
For this blog, Amy Howe combs Kavanaugh’s Judiciary Committee questionnaire for “interesting tidbits,” in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. At Law360 (subscription required), Matthew Perlman takes a close look at Kavanaugh’s “limited but illuminating record on antitrust issues that provides a window into his conservative approach to the area.” At Vox, Jen Kirby notes that “the calls for the Supreme Court nominee to recuse himself from possible future cases involving President Donald Trump are already intensifying.”
At ACS Blog, Simon Lazarus urges Kavanaugh “skeptics … to keep the spotlight fixed on the single question to which the presidential immunity controversy boils down”: whether Kavanaugh “would support eliminating existing legal checks on presidential criminal overreach.” In an op-ed for Marie Claire, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., asserts that “[a] Justice who has been pre-screened for his commitment to take away a woman’s constitutional right to make her own decisions about her body does not belong on the Supreme Court in the 21st century.” In an episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS101 podcast, “Above the Law’s David Lat joins Elizabeth [Slattery] to talk about what happened with the failed nomination of Ryan Bounds and what that means for Brett Kavanaugh (spoiler alert: not much).”
Briefly:
- For Sports Illustrated, Stanley Kay conducts an illustrated tour of “the Highest Court in the Land,” where victors emerge not with five votes and a majority opinion but with 21 points and a margin of at least two”: the basketball court “[d]irectly above the nation’s most important tribunal.”
- At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and others urge the justices to review a takings case that provides an opportunity for the court to “clarify at least one aspect of property law: that when one of Penn Central’s three ad-hoc inquiries tips strongly in favor of the owner, a taking has occurred and compensation is due.”
- In the Penn Program on Regulation’s Regulatory Review, Eric Fikry explains why last term’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the court struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting, is “a watershed moment that dramatically alters the landscape of the gaming industry in the United States.”
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!
