Federal Judiciary

Thursday round-up

By Amanda Rice

While the Court is in recess, Justice Scalia?s comments about gender discrimination and the Fourteenth Amendment and his decision to speak to new members of Congress about the Constitution continue to generate commentary. At Dorf on Law, Mike Dorf argues that Justice Scalia?s position on the Fourteenth Amendment and sex discrimination is ?somewhat overstated,? explaining that ?it was at least possible to argue circa 1868 that [the] broad requirement [of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment] of equal protection required some measure of sexual equality with respect to civil rights.?  The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times defends Justice Scalia?s decision to speak with incoming House members about the Constitution (which Adam previously covered here and here); the board observes that the Justice ?is a learned and provocative legal thinker,? but notes that if ?Congress is going to conduct an adult education seminar on the Supreme Court,? it should also hear from the Justice?s ?liberal colleagues.?  Meanwhile, the WSJ Law Blog and the ABA Journal discuss the critical reactions to the planned lecture.

Briefly:

• At Balkinization, Jamal Greene discusses Justice Thomas?s possible views on the Court?s 1944 decision in Korematsu v. United States.

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on January 06, 2011 (boomark / email).