Thursday round-up

By Amanda Rice
on Oct 28, 2010 at 10:01 am

The Court’s five-to-four vote to lift the stay of Jeffrey Landrigan’s execution, which Adam covered in yesterday’s round-up, continues to generate discussion.  As Appellate Daily’s Michelle Olsen points out, Landrigan’s name might sound familiar because in 2007 the Court decided his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in another five-to-four decision (Schriro v. Landrigan). NPR, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Crime and Consequences Blog, Courthouse News Service, SCOTUSblog, The BLT, and the WSJ Law Blog all provide additional coverage of the decision and Landrigan’s subsequent execution.

The story of the 1 a.m. “robo-call” featuring the voice of retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, which Adam originally covered in yesterday’s round-up, has continued to develop. Yesterday afternoon, Justice O’Connor issued the following statement:  “I did not authorize the use of my recorded statement as part of automated telephone calls to Nevada residents, and I regret that the statement was used in this way. In addition, I view my efforts in support of judicial reform as consistent with the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges.”  Her statement seemed only to add further fuel to discussions about the ethics of her involvement with a political initiative to reform the way state judges are selected. In a series of posts for NRO’s Bench Memos, Ed Whelan and Gary Marx suggest that O’Connor’s involvement in the initiative raises significant ethical questions.  However, The BLT’s Tony Mauro quotes two “judicial ethics experts” who argue that Code of Conduct for United States Judges does not apply to Supreme Court justices, and that even if it did, there is nothing “ethically wrong with O’Connor has done.”  The Washington Post, the WSJ Law Blog, the WSJ Washington Wire Blog, CNN, and the Associated Press also have coverage of O’Connor’s statement and commentary on the potential ethics issues.