“All but one of the nine high court justices earned teaching income or book royalties in 2013, hauling in a quarter of a million dollars for their work shaping young legal minds in the classroom or through the written word,” the Center for Public Integrity found.

“Top earner Justice Antonin Scalia raked in more than $100,000 in book royalties for his 2012 tome Reading Law: Interpretation of Legal Texts and teaching wages from Southern Methodist University, Duke University, Tufts University and Pennsylvania State University… Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not report any outside income in 2013, despite the recent success of her memoir, My Beloved World, for which she received $1.9 million in advances from her publisher Knopf Doubleday in 2012.”

A new study finds that judges with daughters “are more likely to vote in favor of women’s rights than ones with only sons. The effect… is most pronounced among male judges appointed by Republican presidents, like Chief Justice Rehnquist,” the New York Times reports.

“The new study considered some 2,500 votes by 224 federal appeals court judges. ‘Having at least one daughter… corresponds to a 7 percent increase in the proportion of cases in which a judge will vote in a feminist direction.’ Additional daughters do not seem to matter. But the effect of having a daughter is even larger when you limit the comparison to judges with only one child.”

“The Obama administration is facing a liberal revolt in the Senate over two high-priority judicial nominations, potentially jeopardizing its push to shape the federal judiciary in advance of the midterm congressional election,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

“The disputes, which involve hot-button issues including abortion, the Confederate flag and drones, could come to a head as early as Tuesday.”

A new Democracy Corps poll “reveals that the Supreme Court has very lackluster job performance ratings and is viewed as overly political by Americans, who support a wide range of reforms for our nation’s highest court. Perhaps most remarkably, even in a time of intense political polarization there is broad cross-partisan consensus on these issues.”

The Supreme Court ruled that a town in upstate New York may begin its public meetings with a prayer from a “chaplain of the month,” the New York Times reports.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 5-to-4 decision, said “ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond that authority of government to alter or define.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an “Uncle Tom,” adding that “it’s almost to the point saying this man doesn’t like black people, he doesn’t like being black,” The Week reports.

Thompson explained that every decision Thomas has signed on to at the court has “been adverse to the minority community, and the people I represent have a real issue with an African American not being sensible to those issues.”

“With the Supreme Court’s term winding down and Republicans’ midterm election prospects on the rise, some liberal legal advocates want Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire this summer. That way, President Obama can appoint a like-minded successor while the Senate is still under Democratic control,” Roll Call reports.

“A splintered Supreme Court voted 6-2 that states may end racial preferences without violating the U.S. Constitution,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“The case came from Michigan, which in 2006 passed a voter initiative ending racial preferences. A federal appeals court had struck down the measure, finding that it served to disadvantage minorities in the political process.”

“Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a plurality, said that the case wasn’t about resolving the debate over affirmative action, but rather ‘who may resolve it.’ He wrote the Constitution doesn’t forbid voters from ending the practice, which was instituted by officials at the University of Michigan and other state agencies.”

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “sought his advice on when she should retire, although he declined to weigh in on the matter publicly,” the Huffington Post reports.

Said Stevens: “I’d say she doesn’t need my advice, she really doesn’t. She did ask my advice.”

“Perhaps you should revolt.”

— Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, quoted by the Knoxville News Sentinel, to a law school student who questioned the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

David Hawkings: “The Supreme Court has made pretty clear that putting your money where your mouth is deserves broad protection as a form of free political speech. The justices are about to consider whether outright lying in a campaign deserves a similar First Amendment shield.”

“The court’s recent decisions easing the flow of generous campaign contributions already shifted the electoral landscape. If the court finds that even the most patently outrageous statements about candidates may not be barred by law, those two decisions combined could expand the rhetorical battlefield of the midterm elections and raise the attack ad volume as never before.”

Jonathan Chait: “It may seem implausible that Republicans would simply refuse to allow Obama to appoint any justice to such a vacancy. That is only because things that haven’t happened before are hard to imagine. But such a confrontation is not only a logical outcome but the most logical outcome. Voting to flip the Supreme Court would be, if not a political death warrant for a Republican Senator, then certainly taking one’s political life into one’s own hands. Politicians do not like political death warrants — certainly not for the benefit of the opposing party’s agenda.”

“The modern pattern in American politics is that tactics that are legally available, but never used for reasons of custom, eventually become used. The modern pattern is also that the Republican Party, which is the most ideologically cohesive and disciplined party, leads the way.”

The Supreme Court “was subject to an unprecedented security breach when a spectator sneaked a video camera into Wednesday’s proceedings and filmed a protester who disrupted an oral argument,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“The clandestine footage… is the first known video footage of a Supreme Court proceeding to be made public. It isn’t clear what type of device was used to make the recording.”

[Read more…]

Jeffrey Toobin: “As of this Saturday, February 22nd, eight years will have passed since Clarence Thomas last asked a question during a Supreme Court oral argument. His behavior on the bench has gone from curious to bizarre to downright embarrassing, for himself and for the institution he represents.”

Rick Hasen: “Justices should be judged primarily by their opinions. This is the place in which the Justices’ views are translated into legal binding pronouncements, or into well thought-out arguments that the Court has headed off in the wrong direction. Judging Justice Thomas primarily by his opinions, there is no good argument that Justice Thomas is a ‘disgrace.’ Quite the opposite.”

Stuart Taylor: “It’s no secret that Kennedy’s uniquely eclectic mix of views enables him to tip the balance to the left in 5-4 decisions on politically drenched issues including gay rights, abortion, and the death penalty, and to the right on issues including states’ rights, campaign spending, and guns.”

“But how aware are most Americans that taken together, these facts mean that a 77-year-old man whose name is recognized by only 41 percent of the public–fewer than all but one of his eight colleagues–has more power by far than any president (or justice) in history to decree the law of the land on all of the issues mentioned above? Plus other issues, including racial affirmative-action preferences, free speech, school discipline, school integration, school prayer, the death penalty, and much more.”

“In an extended argument that contained large doses of history and practical politics, the Supreme Court on Monday seemed skeptical of the Obama administration’s contention that it had acted properly in bypassing the Senate to appoint several officials during a break in the Senate’s work,” the New York Times reports.

SCOTUSblog: “Even some of the Justices whose votes the government almost certainly needs to salvage an important presidential power were more than skeptical.”

David Hawkings: “One of the biggest congressional stories of the decade starts unfolding Monday — not at the Capitol, but across the street.”

“The Supreme Court will hear arguments in an epic balance of powers battle between the other two branches, one that’s been waiting to happen since George Washington’s time. During the hour, the justices may or may not signal clearly whether they’re going to permit the continued expansive use of the president’s recess appointment authority — or seriously limit its use for the first time.”

Wonk Wire: Supreme Court could nullify existing recess appointments.

“This is a tragic, terrible mistake. We’ve got to lay the blame where it is… This was no compromise. What the president did was capitulate.”

— Rep. David Scott (D-GA), quoted by USA Today, protesting President Obama’s nominees to federal courts in Georgia.