With the Supreme Court out of town during August, analysts are finding more time to develop new critiques about the court’s recent or upcoming jurisprudence.
In The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen writes a commentary entitled Strong Opinions, about Justice Elena Kagan’s prose. A taste of his critique:
“One of the most surprising developments of the last term was Kagan’s emergence as an eloquent voice—surprising because it often takes new justices a few terms to hit their rhetorical stride.”
Rosen draws heavily on Justice Kagan’s dissent in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, a public-financing case from Arizona (see Gavel Grab for background).
In the magazine section of the New York Times, Emily Bazelon opines that the “last term was straight-up dull,” but she points out that cases involving some of the nation’s hottest issues are coming before the court soon. She therefore provides a “a rundown of the perils and the possibilities facing liberals as the court moves toward a potentially transformative moment in its history.”
Meanwhile, Michael Kirkland of UPI wrote an article about race-based cases coming before the court. The headline declared, “Race-based affirmative action in peril.”