Today in the News, 2.12.09

  • “[O]nce again, it looks like it’s a federal court that will force the state to deal with this festering problem.” Another local editorialist, this time in the Austin-American Statesman, complains about the lack of judicial neutrality that can result from campaign contributions made to candidates running for election as state court judges, following yesterday’s plea from the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court to do away with partisan judicial elections. This issue is soon to be explored by the U.S. Supreme Court in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal.
  • “‘It’s not a subject that has a constituency,’ said Carrington. ‘Judges pretty much like things the way they are.’” Marcia Coyle of National Law Journal reports that a group of 33 law professors, judges, and attorneys are calling for fundamental changes in the way the U.S. Supreme Court functions.
  • “’People would say, ‘Who cares that there’s this technical violation of the Constitution?’'” he says. Standing cases often ‘arise in the context of constitutional provisions that no longer seem so terribly significant.’” Jess Bravin, writing in the WSJ, explores the tricky issue of standing in certain types of cases involving the Constitution, following the recent debate over Hillary Clinton’s emoluments problem.