Today in the News, 3.30.09

“If the court voids Section 5, it will remove one of the most potent pieces of civil-rights legislation in the government’s arsenal.” The WSJ tells the background story behind Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, in which the Supreme Court must determine whether Congress acted within its constitutional authority when it reauthorized Section 5, known as the “pre-clearance” provision, of the Voting Rights Act in 2006. (Read CAC’s brief in this case, in support of the United States, to learn why we think it did.)

“‘The A.B.A., even if it might be somewhat biased, will do a more thoughtful and thorough job than most outside vetters.’” In the NY Times today, Adam Liptak quotes Professor James Lindgrin, author of a study used to support the allegation that the American Bar Association is biased in its vetting of judges, while discussing the organization’s historic and future role in vetting the Obama Administration’s candidates.

“‘If the Republicans want to filibuster a judge, that is directly contrary to what their political philosophy was, but I guess it’s all subject to change.’” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), quoted in Politico, stirred controversy late last week with remarks about the Bush-Era Supreme Court judicial nominations, stating his aim under President Obama is to put moderates on the Court.