TV Watch: Gilmore Girls this week was okay, but still rather mundane: sigh. West Wing retained its sheen, though the story line regarding the former Vice President was a bit boring. CJ, including when telling Josh he would not be on a special Japan trip, continued to shine. The current Vice President's aide, however, isn't given much to do but being overbearing in support of a fairly boring character. He started off much more interesting. It was amusing as well to see Al Bundy play the governor of Pennsylvania and potential presidential candidate. Married ... with Children At The White House might be a good show.
A group tried to block the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision in support of gay marriage by arguing that it interfered with the Massachusetts' right to a republican form of government. The U.S. Supreme Court denied it a hearing, which a Slate article notes received a bit too much attention, since nothing really happened -- the argument was trivial, nothing really changed, and the Supremes did not really look at the merits of the issue.
The Guarantee Clause has received more notice than implied in the article,* but overall, true enough. [The denial was not meaningless, since the parties were effected, but the rejection of a claim no one really seriously thought would be accepted isn't very meaningful, especially given nothing much changed as a result.] But, lack of proper perspective is not only a problem in reporting the law. So, I would not just use it as an example of how the press in some fashion especially perverts legal reporting in particular.
The most recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court suggests the mundane nature of much of the law, which might very well be quite important to individual litigants, but is not quite as earth shattering to the rest of the world. But, this doesn't mean the justices don't find special interest in them all the same.
The headnotes of the decision gives one a taste of the somewhat esoteric question of statutory interpretation at issue:
The 1995 amendment left unaltered the $100/$1,000 limits prescribed from the start for TILA violations involving personal-property loans. Both the conventional meaning of "subparagraph" and standard interpretive guides point to the same conclusion.
KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC. v. NIGH, however, had five, count them five, separate opinions. Justice Stevens (with Breyer), Justice Kennedy (with Chief Justice Rehnquist), Justice Thomas (alone) had separate concurrences, while Justice Scalia dissented (no, they aren't always joined at the hip). This suggests that something akin to the blind men who felt an elephant and all got somewhat different readings of what they felt, but all felt the same thing. At least, 8-1.
Justice Stevens opinion referenced an interior debate ongoing on the Supreme Court:
In recent years the Court has suggested that we should only look at legislative history for the purpose of resolving textual ambiguities or to avoid absurdities. It would be wiser to acknowledge that it is always appropriate to consider all available evidence of Congress' true intent when interpreting its work product. Common sense is often more reliable than rote repetition of canons of statutory construction. It is unfortunate that wooden reliance on those canons has led to unjust results from time to time. Fortunately, today the Court has provided us with a lucid opinion that reflects the sound application of common sense.
Others on the Court have a different version of "common sense," including in this very case. This sort of thing ("rote repetition" ... "wooden reliance") is a sort of judicial "doing the dozens" ... slams on each other arising from important differences in judicial philosophy, differences that do not only arise in earth shattering cases or even result in different conclusions. And, if Justice Stevens' interpretative philosophy becomes something of the norm, even in a few states (which are known to be guided by ideas found in concurrences or even dissents), it can be quite important.
Turns out a case with subject matter that might cause one's eyes to glaze over provides a somewhat interesting view into the mindset of the current Supreme Court. One with strong opinions, even when the case doesn't quite justify them.
Or, maybe it did?
---
* For instance, it received some cites in Supreme Court cases involving federalism, such as New York v. U.S. Judge Michael McConnell and a few others used it as an alternative means to deal with legislative districting, though Baker v. Carr specifically (again a sort of notice) avoided doing so. And, some have used it as a way to attack anti-gay ballot measures and such. It clearly is a somewhat arcane issue, though perhaps a bit too much so.
Anyway, since I'm on the subject, the most famous use of this issue was probably during Reconstruction, when the Republican Congress used it to defend its strict treatment of the South.