Federal Judiciary

Friday round-up

By Kali Borkoski

As Amanda recounted in yesterday?s round-up, a group of House Democrats sent a letter to Justice Clarence Thomas asking him to recuse himself from challenges to the health-care litigation. Today, Megan McArdle of the Atlantic reprints excerpts from a recent post by Doug Mataconis at the Outside the Beltway blog, in which Mataconis explains why Justice Thomas is unlikely to recuse himself.  Instead, Mataconis contends, it is more likely that Justice Kagan would recuse herself from a case about the initiative. The Week summarizes (and links to) other views on the recusal question.

Writing about health-care challenges for the Los Angeles Times, David Savage and Kathleen Hennessey summarize the Court?s history in cases seeking to limit governmental power, and they predict that it will be at least a year before a health-care case reaches the Court.

The Boston Globe has a  story on Luis Melendez-Diaz, the petitioner in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009), in which the Court held that the Sixth Amendment?s Confrontation Clause guarantees criminal defendants the right to confront forensic analysts in court.    Yesterday, at his retrial, a jury acquitted Melendez-Diaz of drug trafficking charges.  [Disclosure:  Goldstein, Howe & Russell served as co-counsel to Melendez-Diaz during his Supreme Court proceedings.]

At ACSblog, John Hollway has a detailed analysis of Connick v. Thompson, which was argued earlier this Term.   He argues that ?[w]hat is at stake is nothing less than the ability of our citizenry to hold government officials accountable for their actions.?

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on February 11, 2011 (boomark / email).