Round-Up

Mark Sherman of the Associated Press reports here on Justice Ginsburg’s vocal dissents and the noticeable absence of retired Justice O’Connor.
John Barrett discusses oral dissents including Justice Ginsburg’s oral presentation of her Ledbetter dissent and applauds those who “choose to give personal voice to [their] views…engaging in a public-addressing, publicly accountable and thus commendable part of his or her judicial service” in this post at Talking Justice.

Bloomberg’s Jesse Westbrook has this report on the Securities and Exchange Committee’s decision to break with the Bush Administration and support investors in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta.

At Concurring Opinions, guest blogger Mike O’Shea has these thoughts on Erickson v. Pardus and what it means for Twombly. Guest Blogger Giovanna Shay weighs in here at the ACS Blog comparing the per curiam opinion in Pardus to the Court’s earlier ruling in Jones v. Bock and arguing that both decisions send a clear message to the lower courts: “prisoner cases may be a pain, but you can’t make up more onerous rules to get rid of them.”

Edward Blum has this essay at the National Review Online discussing the forthcoming decision in the Seattle and Louisville school cases and how Republicans and Democrats will react.

At Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler discusses draft legislation that would limit the EPA’s ability to impose greenhouse gas emissions, which seems to conflict with the April Mass v. EPA decision here.