Thursday round-up

Coverage yesterday focused on the speech by retired Justice John Paul Stevens at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock, in which he criticized the Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and argued that the Court has already begun to have second thoughts about the decision.  Writing for this blog, Lyle Denniston described the remarks as part of “[the] retired jurist’s now well-developed habit of commenting on the continuing work of the Court, with candid expressions of when he agrees or disagrees with what it is doing or may yet do.”  Other coverage comes from Pete Williams at MSNBC’s First Read blog, Adam Liptak  at The Caucus blog of The New York Times, David Savage at the Politics Now blog of the Los Angeles Times, Mike Sacks of the Huffington Post, and the Associated Press (via The Washington Post).   In the blogosphere, Rick Hasen of Election Law Blog analyzes the Justice’s possible motivations for his speech, while Brian Wolfman also discusses the speech at Public Citizen’s Consumer Law and Policy blog.

In other campaign finance coverage, George Will – in his column for The Washington Post – weighs in on American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the challenge to the Montana Supreme Court ruling upholding a statute that bans corporate spending in state elections, arguing that “[r]easons for the Supreme Court to reconsider Citizens United are nonexistent.”  And writing for Roll Call, Eliza Newlin Carney suggests that efforts by opponents of Citizens United to seek reconsideration of that decision are a “risky strategy,” reasoning that “[i]f the court decides to take up and argue the challenge in question . . . it’s anyone’s guess where it will come down.”

Other coverage focused on the upcoming decision in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act.  Over at Balkinization, Rob Weiner contends that “[t]o a remarkable degree, the challenges to the Affordable Care Act reflect an effort to codify legal nostalgia as legal doctrine,” while Alex Nussbaum of Bloomberg News reports that major insurance providers are predicting that the Court will not strike down the Act in its entirety, and that the impact of the law will remain unsettled for years to come.

Briefly:

Posted in: Round-up

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY