Thursday round-up
Commentary on the Court’s decision in the GPS tracking case, United States v. Jones, continues for a third day. The editorial boards of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Baltimore Sun all weigh in, while in the blogosphere Orin Kerr (at the Volokh Conspiracy), Jacob Sullum (of Reason), and Paul Larkin (at the Heritage Foundation’s Foundry Blog) also have coverage. Conor covered additional news on the decision yesterday. Discussing the decision at Scientific America, John Villasenor criticizes the Court’s opinion as resting “on technology assumptions that are rapidly becoming irrelevant,” while at Wired’s Threat Level blog, David Kravets discusses whether the government needs a warrant to monitor someone in real time via his mobile phone.
Briefly:
- At the New York Times Opinionator blog, Linda Greenhouse compares the Court’s recent decision in Maples v. Thomas, giving a death row inmate a second chance to seek relief after his lawyers’ actions deprived him of his original chance to do so, with the Court’s 2007 decision in Bowles v. Russell, denying a second chance to a convicted murderer who missed a deadline due to a federal judge’s error.
- Discussing the fall-out from the Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission at Politico, Jeffrey Rosen argues that “as long as the Supreme Court continues to insert itself into the most controversial questions of U.S. politics, it needs justices who are more politically deft in predicting how decisions may be received.”
- At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick discusses what the Court “can learn from Gabby Giffords and Jeff Flake.”
- At the ABA, Rory Little has case summaries of the recent decisions in Jones, Reynolds v. United States, and Ryburn v. Huff.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY