The Supreme Court still did not hand down the cases most people are concerned about, namely the health care cases, the Arizona case or the juvenile life imprisonment case. It did hand down a few somewhat important cases, including one many were interested in, the fleeting expletives case. However, though Ginsburg concurred to say she would do it, seven justices (it from Sotomayor's old home, she recused herself) rested on narrow vagueness grounds.
Something of interest did occur. This might have been a reason the ruling was narrow.
First, in the criminal justice arena, defendants again found that at times they can win one. The "Apprendi" rule involving jury determining the facts used to convict was applied (in a 6-3 ruling by Sotomayor) to criminal fines. Breyer dissented in an opinion about 2x as long with Kennedy and Alito. The majority did not keep "the reader in suspense" regarding "pot-ash and pearl-ash" (see FN7). That is, something involved in some ancient cases that the dissent apparently thought relevant. Meanwhile, Breyer wrote about the "six consideration" that justified applying new rules on crack v. powder cocaine to old cases.
Another split among the liberals arose in a union [not the "a" before a vowel] fees case. Sotomayor joined with Ginsburg to (1) snipe a bit at a majority opinion by Alito for in effect being activist (they both are the "enforcers" on each side) and (2) provide a more limited way for the unions to lose. Breyer/Kagan was in dissent, Breyer reading his dissent orally. Let's hope he doesn't have to do something like that again. SCOTUSBlog suggested the opinion might in the long run be significant. See also, here. [And, here. Can shareholders or those whose money are invested via pension funds etc. have the same "opt out" privileges as the employees do in this context? SG Kagan raised the issue during the CU orals ... or do unions have second class rights here?]
When Justice Harlan, a patrician, wrote Cohen v. California, his opinion noted wrote: "Fuck the Draft," not "F- the Draft." When Stevens wrote his dubious "seven dirty words" plurality in Pacifica (good opinion announcement though), a verbatim transcript was included. But, when the words of the "singer Cher" and "a person named Nicole Richie" was cited, we get things like "f**ing." This prejudges that the words are forbidden. The latest in a long drama on this issue -- even though last time Thomas (as quoted by Ginsburg) et. al. suggested the constitutional dubious nature of the old rule -- again was decided narrowly. The rules were too vague. Will this lead to another case to settle the issue?
There will be at least two more opinion days [or, at least, Monday won't be the last day of the term].
First, in the criminal justice arena, defendants again found that at times they can win one. The "Apprendi" rule involving jury determining the facts used to convict was applied (in a 6-3 ruling by Sotomayor) to criminal fines. Breyer dissented in an opinion about 2x as long with Kennedy and Alito. The majority did not keep "the reader in suspense" regarding "pot-ash and pearl-ash" (see FN7). That is, something involved in some ancient cases that the dissent apparently thought relevant. Meanwhile, Breyer wrote about the "six consideration" that justified applying new rules on crack v. powder cocaine to old cases.
Another split among the liberals arose in a union [not the "a" before a vowel] fees case. Sotomayor joined with Ginsburg to (1) snipe a bit at a majority opinion by Alito for in effect being activist (they both are the "enforcers" on each side) and (2) provide a more limited way for the unions to lose. Breyer/Kagan was in dissent, Breyer reading his dissent orally. Let's hope he doesn't have to do something like that again. SCOTUSBlog suggested the opinion might in the long run be significant. See also, here. [And, here. Can shareholders or those whose money are invested via pension funds etc. have the same "opt out" privileges as the employees do in this context? SG Kagan raised the issue during the CU orals ... or do unions have second class rights here?]
When Justice Harlan, a patrician, wrote Cohen v. California, his opinion noted wrote: "Fuck the Draft," not "F- the Draft." When Stevens wrote his dubious "seven dirty words" plurality in Pacifica (good opinion announcement though), a verbatim transcript was included. But, when the words of the "singer Cher" and "a person named Nicole Richie" was cited, we get things like "f**ing." This prejudges that the words are forbidden. The latest in a long drama on this issue -- even though last time Thomas (as quoted by Ginsburg) et. al. suggested the constitutional dubious nature of the old rule -- again was decided narrowly. The rules were too vague. Will this lead to another case to settle the issue?
There will be at least two more opinion days [or, at least, Monday won't be the last day of the term].