Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
The court announced Monday that it would decide whether Arizona was entitled to impose tough anti-immigration measures over the Obama administration’s objections. The case joined a crowded docket that already included challenges to Mr. Obama’s signature legislative achievement, the 2010 health care overhaul law, and a momentous case on how Texas will conduct its elections.
The Supreme Court already had a few relatively important cases, including one involving the contours of the "ministerial exemption" to federal civil rights laws, the contours of confrontation rights in cases involving forensic experts and a search and seizure case involving GPS devices. Basically the only thing else for them to do now, it appears, is to announce sometime early '12 that they will hear the Prop 8 case. No wonder the '10 Term seemed boring.
The flags here can be seen in the orders alone (aside from -- a first to my knowledge -- having a special page for the PPACA litigation), including one released early Friday evening (notable) spelling out the rules for the accelerated briefing in the Texas case, one which the article notes concerns a ruling below that favored Democrats and they did not really have to take. That they did basically puts the covered elections in limbo until they decide matters. The Arizona case did not fully run its course below, other comparable laws are in the pipeline and Kagan won't take part (a 4-4 tie, somewhat likely on at least part of the challenge, would uphold the ruling below, which struck down parts of the law).
And, the PPACA challenge is a two day marathon that took on even a portion that the 11th Cir. upheld (Medicaid funding). The betting man is left with wondering what is better, what is worse, doubting things will all go the right way.