SCOTUS Good For Business, Bad For Presidential Politics
September 14, 2016
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of The New York Times considers what is most ‘deplorable’ about presidential campaigns, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out it likely has something to do with big money. “It’s hard to believe now, but there was a time in American politics, not so long ago, when a presidential candidate might hold only a few fund-raisers, when a serving president — RONALD REAGAN, for example — might refuse to appear at any fund-raisers at all for his own re-election campaign. That was back before the wily political operatives, and then the Supreme Court, opened the floodgates to cash, and candidates began holding fund-raisers by the score.”
SPEAKING OF
|Jonathan Adler’s new book takes a look at how solicitous the Supreme Court has been of business concerns under CHIEF JOHN ROBERTS. Early reviews look good, and the book is available now.
DOUBLE TROUBLE
|For The Atlantic, Garrett Epps takes on the issue of double jeopardy which a new Supreme Court case is slated to take on this term. He calls double jeopardy one of the most well-known, yet most misunderstood in American criminal law. So come, eat from his block of cheese, and learn about a legal concept that’s double the trouble, and double the fun.
DON'T GIVE A DAMN 'BOUT MY REPUTATION
|In The Washington Post, Ilya Somin considers what the reputation of JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA might look like down the line. “On Scalia, I think his great achievements outweigh his failings. But the latter are still significant, and should not just be ‘washed away.’ Whether any of that actually happens we shall see.”
TOO THIN TO WIN
|“Affirmative action in government contracting is alive — barely. Last week, a federal appeals court upheld a Small Business Administration program that gives advantages to people who have suffered racial discrimination, reasoning that the law as written doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race, because anyone can be the target of racial bias. The decision, which is based on paper-thin legal logic, is an attempt to keep remediation-based affirmative action from disappearing altogether. It may be too little, too late.” That’s Noah Feldman, for BloombergView.
TOO GOOD TRIVIA
|POLITICO Huddle has a Supreme Court-themed trivia question for you today: Which Supreme Court Nominees were confirmed without any nay votes (excluding confirmation by voice vote)? They’re giving bonus points if you name the year the nominees were nominated and the president who nominated them.
OTHER NEWS
Lawyers for Transgender Student Ask Supreme Court Not To Take Case On Anti-Trans School Policy
Buzzfeed“Lawyers for a transgender student who was barred under his Virginia school’s policy from using the boys’ restroom urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow a lower court ruling in his and the Obama administration’s favor to stand.”
Clerkship Bonus Raises: Three Is A Trend
Above the LawHow does it work? Who gets what? And which firms are forking over the biggest bonuses?
SCOTUS selection in play during 2016
Daily Trojan“Given that most millennials are Democrats or describe themselves as Democrat-leaning, Clinton’s likely nominees are important for them to get to know. Clinton and her judicial objectives may not represent the whole of the millennial population, but for a substantial number of them, those are their best bet for representation in the federal judiciary.”