Dynamic commentary on SCOTUS work in Foster and related Monday news

A number of bright folks have already had some dynamic takes the Supreme Court's rulings yesterday in the Georgia capital case, Foster v. Chapman.  Organized alphabetically by location of the commentary, here are a few early takes that caught my eye:

• At The Atlantic here by Garrett Epps, "The Passive-Aggressive U.S. Supreme Court: Even in the face of clear precedent, some justices just don’t like it when a convicted petitioner is right on the law."

• At Bloomberg View here by Noah Feldman, "How Clarence Thomas Broke My Heart"

• At Crime & Consequences here by Kent Scheidegger, "Reversal in an Ugly Batson Case"

• At Crime & Consequences here by Bill Otis, "Reversal in an Ugly Batson Case"

• At Slate here by Dahlia Lithwick, "Peremptory Prejudice: Racism still infects jury challenges, even if most aren’t as blatant as these awful Georgia prosecutors."

The pieces by Epps and Otis are extra-notable because they link into their discussions the SCOTUS Miller remands and the not guilty verdict in a Freddy Gray prosecution, respectively.

UPDATE:  Scott Greenfield made via Twitter the excellent point that the list above included only "commentaries on Foster from people who don't pick juries & nothing from anyone who does." So, with Scott's help, I am here rounding out my round-up of Foster takes:

• At Gamso, For the Defense here by Jeff Gamso, "Cognitive Dissonance - Or Maybe He Just Lied"

• At Mimesis Law here by Andrew Fleischman, "Foster v. Chatman: When Prosecutors Strike"

• At Simple Justice here by Scott Greenfield, "Race Neutral Reasons When Nothing Is Race Neutral"