The first opinion day of the week (yesterday) disposed of five cases, all somewhat also-rans. The opinions largely broke down 6-3.
The oral argument didn't bode well for a prisoner trying to obtain damages against state prison officials for violating his religious liberty. The reason was not that the conservative justices only care about Christians.
Holt v. Hobbs, for instance, protected the rights of a Muslim prisoner. The justices do somewhat selectively care about religious liberty. Nonetheless, the reason for the opinion here is likely somewhat different. Wrong all the same.
Kagan and Jackson joined the result in a case about the Alien Tort Statute (the trend has been limited protections), but joined much of Sotomayor's dissent on why the majority went too far.
The liberals fully disagreed with the conservatives in an immigration case. Thomas for the conservatives.
The one kumbaya moment was an overreach of a case involving the Takings Clause. Fair market value is fair enough when the government sells a property in a tax sale, as long as the whole thing is otherwise fair.
Some libertarians might be upset, but I looked into the details (did so in response to an early response to this guy), and this was no great travesty or anything. This is the case that it's okay to give to Alito.
There will be more pain for the liberal side of things (and more hot-button cases) in the upcoming days.

No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!