Today in the News, 3.5.09
- “The Court’s decision soundly rejects the anti-consumer position of the Bush administration, and reaffirms Congress’ primacy concerning the extraordinary power to preempt state law.” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) comments on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in Wyeth v. Levine, rounding out a tsunami of media coverage of the decision.
- “On the day after oral arguments… lawyers for Massey have asked for permission to include a report detailing West Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Benjamin’s Massey-related voting record.” The Charleston Gazette reports that lawyers for the respondent in Caperton v. Massey Coal want to show the Court evidence that Judge Benjamin actually voted against Massey over 80% of the time. More here.
- “After Trying To Abolish Filibusters Of Judicial Nominees In ‘05, GOP Threatens To Filibuster Obama’s Nominees.” Think Progress gets to the point, following inadequate media coverage of this week’s letter from Republican Senators to President Obama. (Lots more from PFAW’s RightWingWatch.)
More from
December 11, 2025
Not Above the Law Coalition Demands Accountability: Trump’s Illegal National Guard Deployments Threaten Democracy
WASHINGTON - As the Senate Armed Services Committee holds a hearing on the Trump administration’s deployment...
December 14, 2025
The Framers Warned Us About the Dangers of Corruption
December 11, 2025We Seem to Have the Supreme Court’s Originalism Fail of the Term
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard argument in a case that could upend how the...
December 9, 2025
CAC Release: Major Campaign Finance Case Tests Court’s Willingness to Respect Congress’s Policy Judgments Aimed at Curbing Harmful Corruption
WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in National Republican...
December 8, 2025
CAC Release: Conservative Justices Neglect History at Oral Argument in Monumental Case about Independent Agencies
WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Trump v....
U.S. Supreme Court
Pung v. Isabella County
In Pung v. Isabella County, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is implicated when a local government seizes real property to satisfy a tax debt and then...