Bork takes on Kagan’s “immature theory of judging”

SCOTUSblog: This Term’s pending cases

Fellow law clerks endorse Kagan for court

Former SGs Endorse Kagan for Supreme Court

Republicans May Boycott Kagan Supreme Court Hearings Over Lack of Documents

Kagan sought secrecy in 4 of 5 open gov’t cases

Is Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan an Ex-Gay?

Law Review: Justice Sotomayor and Establishment Clause Jurisprudence

    Justice Sotomayor and Establishment Clause Jurisprudence: Which Antiestablishment Standard Will Justice Sotomayor Endorse?
    David M. Estes, 11 Rutgers J. L. & Religion 525 (2010)

    “Over a decade ago Justice Antonin Scalia caricatured the Lemon test as a ‘late night ghoul that refuses to die.’ The Lemon test is the legal standard used to determine whether a government action runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For years Justice Scalia and his allies on the highest court have worked to build a large enough coalition to overrule the Lemon test, and establish a new standard for determining the constitutionality of a government act under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

    Justice Byron White famously observed that every time a new justice comes to the Supreme Court of the United States ‘it’s a different court.’ So the 2009 appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court raises the question of how will the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence be affected. Will Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a left of center Catholic, provide the all-powerful fifth vote and finally put to death Justice Scalia’s ghoul?

    To explore this question, this article will (1) summarize and review Establishment Clause jurisprudence, (2) examine Justice Sotomayor’s Establishment Clause record, and (3) identify characteristics of Justice Sotomayor’s jurisprudence that might suggest how her appointment will affect the evolution of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

  • Posted: 06/22/2010
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source:

  • Tags: , , , ,

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

Supreme Court Bingo predicts the author of the CLS opinion

Bork to publicly oppose Kagan for Supreme Court

Top Senate Republican Leaves Door Open to Potential Elena Kagan Filibuster

Kagan and Shariah: Supreme court nominee displays selective moral outrage

Kagan notes label KKK and NRA as ‘bad guy’ organizations

ABA Asks High Court To Take Judges’ Pay Raise Suit

    Forbes: “The ABA filed a brief Monday arguing that Congress’ periodic withholding of the judicial cost-of-living increases has resulted in compensation that is ‘now so low that it seriously compromises the independence that life tenure was intended to ensure, and is insufficient to attract and retain well-qualified jurists from diverse economic and societal backgrounds.’”

  • Posted: 06/18/2010
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source:

  • Tags: ,

Judiciary chairman expects July vote for Kagan

Kagan’s e-mails to go public as hearings approach

Senate Republican Accuses Kagan of Staying Silent on Saudi Gift to Harvard

Who’s Writing the Opinion in CLS v Martinez?

Elena Kagan’s Oxford Thesis Has Supreme Court Nominee Praising Activist Judges

Supreme Court OKs search of policeman’s sexy text messages

The Constitution and Souter: Let’s hope Kagan feels otherwise

    David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey write at USA Today: “In fact, former Justice David Souter set the discussion in motion last month in a Harvard commencement address — arguing that seeking to resolve difficult constitutional questions based on an honest effort to construe that document’s words (whether broadly or narrowly) “has only a tenuous connection to reality” and leads to bad decisions. Souter’s candor is commendable but also genuinely troubling — the practical equivalent of a retired cardinal announcing that religion is an opiate for the masses . . . ”

  • Posted: 06/16/2010
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source:

  • Tags: , , ,

The Liberal Mythology of the “Activist” Supreme Court

Jordan Lorence: Elena Kagan and Mrs. Smith

Fellow law school deans embrace Kagan for court

Georgetown Supreme Court Institute seeking Deputy Director

Kagan Worked on Jones Suit for Clinton

Vets ask Obama to restore memorial cross

High court sides with immigrant with minor record

Kagan role in Clinton sex harassment suit withheld

Kagan took broad view of religious freedom

President Obama Names James E. Graves, Jr. to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

GOP senators criticize Kagan’s work as court clerk

Kagan Files From Clinton Administration Show Her Backing Human Cloning

Kagan’s threat to gun owners

NY: Local man’s child porn case goes to U.S. Supreme Court

Sotomayor votes reliably with Supreme Court’s liberal wing

Pro-Lifers Worry Kagan Could Push Supreme Court on Assisted Suicide

Dellinger: Kagan is no Souter

Kagan Article Shows She May Use Motive Test to Strike Pro-Life Abortion Laws

U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks AZ Campaign Finance Law

Kagan Nomination Not Stopping Other Nominees

Judicial Expert: Memo Makes it Clear Elena Kagan Would Back Roe, Abortion

Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Kagan headed for OK Corral

The Blankest Slate

    Ed Whelan writes at National Review: In sum, Kagan, in an exercise of cheap moral posturing, elevated her ideological commitment on gay rights above what Congress, acting on the advice of military leaders, had determined best served the interests of national security. She directed her verbal fire entirely at the military, not at the politicians who in fact bore ultimate responsibility for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In the midst of war, she violated federal law by treating military recruiters worse than she treated the elite law firms that were donating their legal services to anti-American terrorists and suspected terrorists. As Peter Beinart, the liberal former editor of The New Republic, has put it, barring military recruiters from the jobs office amounted to “a statement of national estrangement,” of Kagan’s “alienating [her]self from the country.”

  • Posted: 06/07/2010
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source:

  • Tags: , ,

Justice Thomas and the state bench: The new Supreme Court feeders?

    The Faculty Lounge: “I believe we may be seeing a new Supreme Court nominee feeder – Justice Thomas – and a new Supreme Court feeder system . . . the state Supreme Courts. Lacking the ability to appoint judges to the U.S. Courts of Appeal during an Obama Presidency, but in an effort to culture (and observe) future Republican Supreme Court nominees, it seems that the Republicans may be tapping a new route to the High Court.”

  • Posted: 06/07/2010
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source:

  • Tags: ,

Titles of Nobility in America: Elena Kagan and the Return to Feudalism

6th Circuit takes lead as most reversed appeals court

Kagan called assisted suicide ban “terrible idea”

Clinton-era Kagan documents are released

Kagan files show pragmatic streak in tobacco talks

ABA in midst of Kagan evaluation

Support for confirming Kagan trails that of recent nominees

SCOTUSblog: Parsing Kagan’s memos

Documents show Kagan’s liberal opinion on social issues

Two thirds of Americans cannot name even one Supreme Court Justice

“David Souter vs. the Antonin Scalias”

    E.J. Dionne Jr. writing in the Washington Post: “In a remarkable speech that received far too little attention, former Supreme Court justice David Souter took direct aim at the conservatives’ favorite theory of judging. Souter’s verdict: It ‘has only a tenuous connection to reality.’ At issue is ‘originalism,’ an approach to reading the Constitution whose seeming precision has given conservatives a polemical advantage over the liberals’ ‘living Constitution’ idea that appears to let judges say our founding document means whatever they want it to mean.” | Via How Appealing.

  • Posted: 06/03/2010
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source:

  • Tags: , ,

“Elena Kagan in private practice (and her First Amendment experience)”

Supreme Court reins in Miranda rules in case from Southfield

    Detroit Free Press: “In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that if a suspect has been read and understands his or her Miranda rights, police can interrogate him or her indefinitely, unless the suspect tells them outright that he or she is not talking to them . . . The case grew out of a January 2000 shooting death outside Lou’s Deli on Greenfield Road. Van Chester Thompkins remained silent for nearly three hours . . . Hours into the interrogation, Detective Christopher Helgert asked Thompkins if he believed in God. Thompkins said yes. Then Helgert asked: ‘Did you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?’ And Thompkins said yes again. To police, it sounded like a confession, and it helped convict Thompkins of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison.” | Via Religion Clause.

  • Posted: 06/03/2010
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source:

  • Tags: ,

Goldwater Institute will appeal Ninth Circuit Clean Elections decision, refile injunction request

Clinton representative reviewing Kagan documents

Five new decisions emerge from a productive holiday weekend at the Court

High Court: Justices to consider ‘funeral protests’ in free-speech case

Senators await Kagan papers from Clinton library

High Court Nominee Kagan May Get Support From Republicans

Kagan’s early influences demanding, activist

Supreme Court won’t halt Ariz. Clean Elections law

Amicus curiae and Supreme Court case selection

Memos From Kagan’s Clerkship For Thurgood Marshall Include Abortion Cases

SCOTUS: Latest Stat Pack available

O’Connor, Scalia: Lack of judicial experience not an issue