“Barrett, Declining to Detail Legal Views, Says She Will Not Be ‘a Pawn’ of Trump; President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee refused to weigh in on critical matters that could come before the court, including health care, abortion rights and a possible election dispute”: Nicholas Fandos will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.
Also in Wednesday’s edition of that newspaper, Adam Liptak will have a news analysis headlined “Barrett’s Testimony Is a Deft Mix of Expertise and Evasion; Judge Amy Coney Barrett demonstrated easy familiarity with Supreme Court precedents but said almost nothing about whether they should stand.”
And Carl Hulse of The New York Times has a news analysis headlined “Amid the Barrett Hearing Choreography, a Near-Certain Outcome: Confirmation; Democrats pressed Judge Amy Coney Barrett more with the election in mind than out of any hope of derailing her rise to the Supreme Court.”
“Barrett reveals formula for reversing landmark rulings; A daylong hearing revealed how President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee views the susceptibility of abortion and desegregation decisions to being reversed”: Jonathan Allen of NBC News has this news analysis.
“Judge Amy Coney Barrett Won’t Say How She’d Rule On Abortion, Healthcare, Marriage Equality, Or The Election; Barrett cited judicial ethics rules and told senators it wouldn’t be appropriate for her to signal in advance how she might rule on a certain issue”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report.
“How SCOTUS Nominations Became All-Out War: The Dems, the GOP and even the Founders bear some blame. It was never supposed to work this way. Can we fix it?” Law professor Robert L. Tsai has this essay online at Politico Magazine.
“Barrett declines to commit to recusing herself from a Trump election case”: Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.
“What the pros are watching for at Barrett’s confirmation hearing”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.
“How to Get Amy Coney Barrett to Say What She Really Thinks; Democratic senators have been stonewalled by Barrett’s refusal to talk about her judicial philosophy; Here are four ways they might get better answers”: Law professor Kimberly Wehle has this essay online at Politico Magazine.
“Barrett apologizes for calling sexual orientation a ‘preference’; ‘I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense to the LGBTQ community,’ she says”: Matthew Choi of Politico has this report.
“Trump’s words haunt Amy Coney Barrett as she vows not to be a ‘pawn’ on Supreme Court; ‘I can’t really speak to what the president has said on Twitter,’ Barrett said in response to a question about his promise to get the Affordable Care Act struck down”: Sahil Kapur of NBC News has this report.
“Why Amy Coney Barrett’s Use of ‘Sexual Preference’ Is So Alarming; The archaic expression is an anti-gay dog whistle to the religious right”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Who’s Afraid of Amy Coney Barrett? Democrats are treating the nominee like a prop at a campaign rally.” This editorial will appear in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“Panic Does Not Provide Carte Blanche to State Executives; Three recent cases challenge the statutory and constitutional bases of legislative delegation to executive branches”: James R. Rogers has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
“These Are The Nightmare Scenarios For The 2020 Election; The 12th Amendment to the Constitution could take America to a dark place; ‘If this happens, we’ve crossed a line in the history of the republic'”: Paul McLeod of BuzzFeed News has this report.
“Amy Coney Barrett Says Judges Shouldn’t Make Policy. That’s Nonsense. Conservatives often claim judges shouldn’t make laws, only interpret them. The people who wrote the Constitution would disagree.” Law professor Carissa Byrne Hessick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Where Court Packing Is Already Happening: Four years ago, Arizona expanded its state supreme court; Here’s how it turned out.” Hank Stephenson has this report at Politico Magazine.
And online at CNN, Nicole Hemmer has an essay titled “Why history shows ‘court packing’ isn’t extreme.”
“Judge Barrett’s Views on What a Faithful Catholic Judge Should Do When She Has Conflicting Religious and Judicial Obligations”: Marty Lederman has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.
“Justices to Hear First #MeToo-Era Assault Case from Military”: Jordan S. Rubin of Bloomberg Law has this report.
“U.S. Supreme Court to hear challenge to influential patent court”: Jan Wolfe of Reuters has this report.
And at his “Patently-O” blog, Dennis Crouch has a post titled “Certiorari granted in Arthrex.”
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in three related cases that will collectively result in one hour of oral argument.
And in Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, No. 19-1284, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari.
“Oh, Now You Believe in Norms; The G.O.P. blocked Obama and quick-pitched Amy Coney Barrett; Democrats must fight fire with fire”: Columnist Jamelle Bouie has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Why Only Amy Coney Barrett Gets to Have It All; Her strong faith, embrace of motherhood and career accomplishments have made her an icon for the right; So why aren’t more girls from conservative Christian traditions encouraged to be like her?” Katelyn Beaty has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Showtime in a Potential Petri Dish: The Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court are a different kind of pinstripe rodeo — one with hazmat suits.” Mark Leibovich has this Washington Memo in today’s edition of The New York Times.
“This isn’t a confirmation. It’s a referendum on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.” Columnist Dana Milbank has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“Biden says he’s ‘not a fan of court-packing'”: Sean Sullivan of The Washington Post has this report.
“There are many reasons to fear Barrett’s confirmation. The Affordable Care Act isn’t one of them.” Columnist Ruth Marcus has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Washington Post.
“If you think the U.S. Supreme Court is undemocratic, just look at Canada’s”: J.J. McCullough has this essay online at The Washington Post.
