Schumer proceeded to dig in and even blast Roberts personally for the criticism. By Thursday, he was ready to concede grudgingly that he “should not have used the words I used. They didn’t come out the way I intended to,” while still staying on the offensive in every other respect and accusing his adversaries of “manufacturing” the uproar.

I’ve got a new post at Ricochet reviewing the controversy, including its much-echoed “what about…?” dimension:

Defenders of Schumer assailed the chief justice for not having weighed on some other inappropriate Trump sallies, including his ill-grounded speculation recently (never filed as an actual motion) that Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor should recuse themselves from Trump matters, and his aspersions on the judge in the Roger Stone case. Those are part of a frequent and blatant Trump habit of trash-talking judges, both as a candidate (calling the judge in the Trump University case “Mexican” and “a hater”) and as President (“so-called judge” among numerous others). Some — I’m one — would say that this is among Trump’s very worst and most damaging patterns of behavior.

But as cooler heads noted, including Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, the chief justice is not a playground proctor who can step in to write up every demerit; he needs to save his efforts for the instances that are most dangerous, as he in fact has done.

The wider picture, it might be noted, is one in which nasty swipes at judges have been routinized for years, from a range of public figures and also from former President Barack Obama, both in his 2010 State of the Union speech and also repeatedly during the court review of ObamaCare. Still, none of these have gone as far to suggest personal threat as did Schumer — not even the extraordinarily inappropriate amicus brief filed by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Senate Democrats last August, assailing the Court’s legitimacy and warning that “restructuring” at the hands of political branches lies ahead if it does not mend its ways.

I conclude that Schumer needs to go back and apologize, seriously this time. And it’s time for all who’ve fallen short of defending judicial independence — Republicans and Democrats alike — to do so. [cross-posted from Cato at Liberty]

Schumer backtracks on SCOTUS diatribe, but not far enough is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

• Court agrees to tackle RICO extraterritoriality [Alison Frankel/Reuters and earlier background, Washington Legal Foundation; RJR Nabisco v. European Community]
• New term shaping up as even bigger for class action law than expected [Jess Bravin, W$J, Alison Frankel in June] In addition to Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo (“trial by formula“) and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins [uninjured plaintiff standing: Kevin LaCroix, more], cases include DirecTV v. Imburgia [can California court refuse to enforce arbitration clause waiving class actions?; Ronald Mann, WLF]; Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez [is class action mooted when defendant proffers full recoverable amount to named plaintiff? Ronald Mann]; and now, just granted, MHN Government Services, Inc. v. Zaborowski (“Whether California’s arbitration-only severability rule is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act”). DirecTV is slated for oral argument Tues., Oct. 6, and Campbell-Ewald Wed., Oct. 14;
• Rating John Roberts as Chief Justice: a lot to like if you get past the overdone deference to political branches [Roger Pilon, Cato; a contrary view, Evan Bernick] “The Fatal Conceit of Chief Justice Roberts’s ‘Long Game'” [Josh Blackman]
• Why the Little Sisters of the Poor have a better religious liberty case than Kim Davis [Noah Feldman, Cato amicus and Josh Blackman podcast]
• Did 2012 Congressional enactment on frozen Iran assets and terrorism claimants unconstitutionally direct courts how to decide pending litigation? Court grants cert [Bank Markazi v. Peterson; Lyle Denniston]
• Symposium on teacher-dues First Amendment case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association with Deborah LaFetra, David Rifkin/Andrew Grossman, and others [SCOTUSblog] “If unions lose agency fees, what next?” [Joanne Jacobs]
• A regulatory taking? PLF seeks certiorari on California Supreme Court decision upholding San Jose “inclusionary zoning” rules [Pacific Legal Foundation, more; Scott Beyer]
• Plus: “Supreme Court Justices Get More Liberal As They Get Older” [Oliver Roeder/Five Thirty-Eight, with charts]

Supreme Court roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Riley’s best line is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Law schools roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

May 14 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Constitutional law roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Politics roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Randy Barnett on Obamacare decision is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

July 23 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

[cross-posted at Cato at Liberty]

Medical roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system