November 30, 2004

Nina Totenberg is OK, But Other Court Coverage ...

Since I panned Morning Edition (in particular, the blather of Cokie Roberts) yesterday, it seems only fair to note that I liked one of their news features this morning. Nina Totenberg's coverage of today's Title IX-related case before the Supreme Court was 1) both informative as to the legal question at issue and 2) sweet and heart-string pulling. I don't need the latter, but as long as she fully covers the former - I'm ok with it. And she did the best job I've heard or seen yet in dicussing this case and placing it in the context of precedent and administrative actions.

By the way, am I the only person who got sick of the bad coverage of Raich this weekend and yesterday? Correct me if I'm wrong Joshua, but wasn't the only real question in that case it's Commerce Clause implications? Every reporter, their brother and their red-headed-stepchild kept discussing it as a "medical marijuana" case - but my understanding is that that issue had largely been settled and that the Courts had said that the government could ban medical marijuana (though of course a change in the interpretation of the Commerce Clause could then unsettle that question).

UPDATE: I see Eugene Volokh shares my exasperation. Posted by armand at November 30, 2004 09:54 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics


Comments

i would have directed you to the volokh post if you hadn't discovered it yourself. i'll only add that nobody -- but nobody -- likes the commerce clause, and it does nothing for rating. a bunch of pot-smoking malingerers, though -- now that's a story.

(of course, it's kind of hard to explain how states deep in dixie which are a far cry from approving medical marijuana, including (i think) alabama and mississippi, are taking the side of california, et al., and asking in effect that the federal government butt out. oh yeah, that's right, only a few commentators have even bothered to try.)

Posted by: joshua at November 30, 2004 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

And it wasn't even the Ninth Circuit:

Universities may bar military recruiters from their campuses without risking the loss of federal money, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, found that educational institutions have a First Amendment right to keep military recruiters off their campuses to protest the Defense Department policy of excluding gays from military service.


Posted by: binky at November 30, 2004 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Binky - If the 3rd Circuit doesn't rehear this case you'd have to think it might have a decent shot at being taken up by the Supremes. This strikes me as a terribly complicated area theoretically (what is compelled speech, etc.), but maybe there are lots of relevant precedents I don't know about.

Posted by: Armand at November 30, 2004 01:23 PM | PERMALINK

maybe there are lots of relevant precedents I don't know about

i can tell a veiled invitation when i see it. but i have no time. gah!!!

Posted by: joshua at November 30, 2004 03:57 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?