My new post at Cato at Liberty takes a look at yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Williams v. Illinois, a Confrontation Clause case involving an accused rapist. It’s one more data point bolstering the observation that if the three most liberal members of the current Court (Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor) vote together with some frequency, it’s more because they share a certain philosophy about the law than because they’re all women.
P.S. I see Eugene Volokh got there first, drawing similar conclusions (& welcome Nabiha Syed, SCOTUSblog readers).
She’s not expected to sympathize with them, for reasons Ted outlines at Point of Law.
I was a guest this evening on Kevin Whalen’s Pundit Review talk show on the Boston station. We mostly discussed the Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination, on which I’ve blogged here, here, here, and here. More: a write-up, and audio.
I’m one of the participants in a National Review Online symposium on how Republican senators should approach Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination (earlier). And I’ve got a big link roundup at Cato at Liberty this morning pulling together some highlights of what’s being said about her, including some not-especially-reassuring reports on her views of administrative/regulatory law and First Amendment law.
P.S. As for Left critics of Kagan, Ted at Point of Law thinks they’re being foolish: she’ll deliver a voting record as Justice very similar to what a more outspoken ideologue would have done, without exposing President Obama to as much flak in the confirmation process.
I’ve got some thoughts up at Cato at Liberty on President Obama’s new nominee.
Other views: Ted and Carter at Point of Law, Ilya Somin, Jonathan Adler, and Jim Lindgren at Volokh. And Ilya Shapiro digs into Kagan’s record on the First Amendment with some not especially reassuring results, while Radley Balko finds cause for concern on criminal law and civil liberties.