Oral Argument Recap in Speedy Trial Act Case:  At SCOTUSblog, Anna Christensen recaps last Tuesday's oral arguments in Bloate v. United States.  According to Christensen, last week's arguments could have left spectators "believ[ing] that several of the justices were acting as legislators."  She points to the fact that several Justices appeared concerned over the Speedy Trial Act's failure to set a set time for courts responding to pretrial motions.  Justices were concerned that Act allows different districts allocate different times for responding to pretrial motions.  Christensen appears disappointed by the course of the arguments.  She notes that the more interesting issue raised in Bloate - how to address "dueling policies" that public interest prevents a defendant from prospectively waiving his right to a speedy trial, and Congress' intent of furthering the criminal defendant's constitutional right to receive a speedy trial - was hardly addressed.  She hopes that the decision focuses on more important issues than those raised during argument.

Does the Eighth Amendment Only Prohibit Cruel and Unusual Punishment?  That's what Professor Meghan J. Ryan wants to find out in her new SSRN article which will be published in the Washington University Law Review.  Doug Berman posts the link and the abstract to her article at Sentencing Law and Policy.  In her article, Professor Ryan, traces the history of the Eighth Amendment and analyzes the Court's early interpretations of the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments," to conclude that the Eighth Amendment  "prohibits only punishments that are both cruel and unusual and that each of these components of the Clause should thus be independently assessed."  Meghan Ryan is a visiting professor at University of Minnesota's School of Law.  Last year she published an article in the North Carolina Law Review asking whether stare decisis applied in the Eighth Amendment context.  

Federalist Society SCOTUScast:  At the Federalist Society's website, Jacob Loshin, reviews the Supreme Court's October 6th arguments in United States v. Stevens.  The case reviews the constitutionality of a federal statute that criminalizes the creation for sale of depictions of animal cruelty.  Loshin's SCOTUScast describes the arguments made by each party, including the government's position that animal cruelty videos are not protected by the First Amendment.  Loshin categorizes this position as "ambitious," since the Court has traditionally taken a narrow view of what constitutes unprotected speech.  Loshin is an associate in Winston & Strawn's Washington, D.C. office, and filed a brief on the behalf of Respondent, Stevens, for the CATO Institute.  More information on Stevens can be found in last week's News Scan.