Federal Judiciary

Monday round-up

By James Bickford

It was a quiet weekend on the Supreme Court beat.  This morning, the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times both comment on the Court?s grant of certiorari in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd.  The New York Times concludes that ?[i]n forcefully defending the material witness statute on grounds that curtailing it would severely limit its usefulness,? the Obama administration ?is defending the law as a basis for detention.? The Los Angeles Times encourages the Court to ?pay close attention to an appeals court opinion explaining why Ashcroft isn’t entitled to immunity.?

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports on an appearance by retired Justice John Paul Stevens at the swearing-in of new attorneys in southern Nevada.  In his remarks, the Justice reaffirmed his disagreement with Texas v. Johnson, which held that flag burning was protected speech.  (Thanks to How Appealing for the link.)

Briefly:

• ACSblog posts a panel discussion of AT&T v. Concepcion, involving the question of preemption and the Federal Arbitration Act.

• The Washington Post?s Reliable Source Blog and California?s Long Beach Press-Telegram both comment on the role of the Justices at the State of the Union address.

• The recent telephone call from Virginia Thomas to Anita Hill continues to draw comment.  Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and Jost on Justice both weigh in.

• At the Huffington Post, Amanda Terkel reports on Rep. Peter DeFazio?s announcement that he intends to investigate the potential impeachment of Chief Justice John Roberts.   Although John Nichols of the Nation supports DeFazio?s efforts, Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy calls them ?absurd.?

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on October 25, 2010 (boomark / email).