No SSM stuff yet -- no kidding -- but this sounds like a good book on marriage including a concern about polygamy that isn't textbook expensive like a past book discussed on that blog. The general "don't criminalize, admit complications but still specially honor monogamy" sentiment seems correct to me. I'm all for flexibility involving arraignments, but the "don't care, just license polygamy" sentiment is not for me.
Various opinions handed down, including those in some fairly significant cases, if not the ones many are focused upon. Those two blogs have and will continue to have coverage with a special focus on criminal justice matters noticeable. There are also two free speech cases (signs and license plates) with interesting splits. The theme today might be concurring and dissenting opinions. SCOTUS watchers will have some "fun" today as noted by someone during the SCOTUSBlog live blog. They have competition now with Oyez.com sponsoring their own and others live tweeting. I will cite the cases by name; they can be found here.
Ohio v. Clark unanimously held remarks from a three year old did not cause Confrontation Clause problems. Justice Alito wrote the opinion and annoyed Scalia (with Ginsburg) and Thomas (with his own unique views) with certain reasoning and/or dicta that seemed in Scalia's eyes to "shovel dirt" on reason confrontation law. The use of an uncontroversial case to have "Easter eggs" (to use slang for hidden things on DVDs and such) is not unknown and to me somewhat tedious. It also wouldn't be surprising since Alito et. al. aren't big fans of the breadth of recent cases here with Sotomayor/Kagan generally okay but a bit more wary than S/G.
Brumfield v. Cain was 5-4 opinion upholding a claim regarding intellectual disability in regard to a death sentence. Justice Thomas dissented, adding one section that Alito and Roberts didn't join (though they thought it rewarding reading) comparing the success of the victims of the murder with the murderer. [Correction: Scalia did not join the statement by A/R but also did not join that section either. Also, Thomas provided a videotape of the confession to the website, only the third time a justice did that.] The basic idea to me seemed rather comparable to him calling out welfare moms or something for complaining given he managed to fight poverty to grow up to be a justice and all. He added a picture of the victim. The case is about the rights of defendant, who might be executed. When Thomas decided such a defendant has a good claim, will he include a picture of the victim too? What is special about this case in particular?
Davis v. Ayala involved the alleged harmless error regarding racial based challenges, which split the Court 5-4 with Sotomayor dissenting. The particularly notable thing here (foreshadowed by a question posed at oral argument) is Kennedy's eloquent concerns for long term solitary confinement in a solo concurrence. Kennedy concludes with a quote from the author of Crime and Punishment that how we treat prisoners tells us something about how we treat everyone else. Thomas gratuitously responds that the guy in solitary murdered people, so is better off than his victims.
McFadden v. U.S. unanimously required knowledge that a certain drug was covered by the statute in question. CJ Roberts added a brief concurrence and included a quick "pop quiz." How much this will matter is unclear in this case, but it is one of many cases where SCOTUS in some fashion tempered potentially broad criminal statutes. It is on that level appreciated.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert unanimously held a local sign statute (here with religious liberty implications) was unconstitutionally content based. The confusion here was to set forth a rule that would not be too overbroad, since all regulations are not going to be "one size fits all." This split the justices. Three justices (the unusual Alito/Kennedy/Sotomayor trio) concurring with the majority but argued it wasn't as broad as it might look. Three (the rest of the liberals led by Kagan) disagreed and only concurred in judgment. Thus, we have another "simple" case that is somewhat confused. Seems like there should be a way to avoid this.
Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. had the unusual line-up that allowed Justice Thomas to assign the case.. Breyer wrote it; Thomas was the senior justice over the four liberals. Still waiting for that chance for RBG to assign an opinion, Alito joining the liberals. (Don't think this happened yet -- asked more than one court watcher and they didn't know of such a case.) This was the tricky license plate case where the state has a rather broad range of vanity plates but rejected this one. SCOTUS upheld it as a government speech case though the Alito dissent, which Breyer didn't engage (don't like that), made some good points.
[A connection to last night's horrible shooting is that the Confederate flag still flies over the state capitol in South Carolina. (Update: As seen here, it is not on the capitol dome, but on statehouse grounds; all the same, the overall effect is that it flies high, "over" the capitol. The improvement - it was taken down from the dome in 2000 -- is appreciated but limited.) Some have argued that this is a special "badge of slavery" that violates the 13A, which applies to private action, but has special concern here when the government is involved.
On that level, perhaps, a message on a state license plate with particular constitutional concerns would be a special category. Mere "government speech," such as in support of capitalism, might be different from messages deemed racist, especially a former Confederate state where others very well might reasonably think the state in some fashion "endorses" the message here. At least, an easier case. Then, perhaps, a person might say a disclaimer alone would be enough, but not sure if it really would be.
Anyway, the overall concern might be enough that a limited content classification in this respect would be acceptable. ]
Meanwhile, in Germany.
Various opinions handed down, including those in some fairly significant cases, if not the ones many are focused upon. Those two blogs have and will continue to have coverage with a special focus on criminal justice matters noticeable. There are also two free speech cases (signs and license plates) with interesting splits. The theme today might be concurring and dissenting opinions. SCOTUS watchers will have some "fun" today as noted by someone during the SCOTUSBlog live blog. They have competition now with Oyez.com sponsoring their own and others live tweeting. I will cite the cases by name; they can be found here.
Ohio v. Clark unanimously held remarks from a three year old did not cause Confrontation Clause problems. Justice Alito wrote the opinion and annoyed Scalia (with Ginsburg) and Thomas (with his own unique views) with certain reasoning and/or dicta that seemed in Scalia's eyes to "shovel dirt" on reason confrontation law. The use of an uncontroversial case to have "Easter eggs" (to use slang for hidden things on DVDs and such) is not unknown and to me somewhat tedious. It also wouldn't be surprising since Alito et. al. aren't big fans of the breadth of recent cases here with Sotomayor/Kagan generally okay but a bit more wary than S/G.
Brumfield v. Cain was 5-4 opinion upholding a claim regarding intellectual disability in regard to a death sentence. Justice Thomas dissented, adding one section that Alito and Roberts didn't join (though they thought it rewarding reading) comparing the success of the victims of the murder with the murderer. [Correction: Scalia did not join the statement by A/R but also did not join that section either. Also, Thomas provided a videotape of the confession to the website, only the third time a justice did that.] The basic idea to me seemed rather comparable to him calling out welfare moms or something for complaining given he managed to fight poverty to grow up to be a justice and all. He added a picture of the victim. The case is about the rights of defendant, who might be executed. When Thomas decided such a defendant has a good claim, will he include a picture of the victim too? What is special about this case in particular?
Davis v. Ayala involved the alleged harmless error regarding racial based challenges, which split the Court 5-4 with Sotomayor dissenting. The particularly notable thing here (foreshadowed by a question posed at oral argument) is Kennedy's eloquent concerns for long term solitary confinement in a solo concurrence. Kennedy concludes with a quote from the author of Crime and Punishment that how we treat prisoners tells us something about how we treat everyone else. Thomas gratuitously responds that the guy in solitary murdered people, so is better off than his victims.
McFadden v. U.S. unanimously required knowledge that a certain drug was covered by the statute in question. CJ Roberts added a brief concurrence and included a quick "pop quiz." How much this will matter is unclear in this case, but it is one of many cases where SCOTUS in some fashion tempered potentially broad criminal statutes. It is on that level appreciated.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert unanimously held a local sign statute (here with religious liberty implications) was unconstitutionally content based. The confusion here was to set forth a rule that would not be too overbroad, since all regulations are not going to be "one size fits all." This split the justices. Three justices (the unusual Alito/Kennedy/Sotomayor trio) concurring with the majority but argued it wasn't as broad as it might look. Three (the rest of the liberals led by Kagan) disagreed and only concurred in judgment. Thus, we have another "simple" case that is somewhat confused. Seems like there should be a way to avoid this.
Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. had the unusual line-up that allowed Justice Thomas to assign the case.. Breyer wrote it; Thomas was the senior justice over the four liberals. Still waiting for that chance for RBG to assign an opinion, Alito joining the liberals. (Don't think this happened yet -- asked more than one court watcher and they didn't know of such a case.) This was the tricky license plate case where the state has a rather broad range of vanity plates but rejected this one. SCOTUS upheld it as a government speech case though the Alito dissent, which Breyer didn't engage (don't like that), made some good points.
[A connection to last night's horrible shooting is that the Confederate flag still flies over the state capitol in South Carolina. (Update: As seen here, it is not on the capitol dome, but on statehouse grounds; all the same, the overall effect is that it flies high, "over" the capitol. The improvement - it was taken down from the dome in 2000 -- is appreciated but limited.) Some have argued that this is a special "badge of slavery" that violates the 13A, which applies to private action, but has special concern here when the government is involved.
On that level, perhaps, a message on a state license plate with particular constitutional concerns would be a special category. Mere "government speech," such as in support of capitalism, might be different from messages deemed racist, especially a former Confederate state where others very well might reasonably think the state in some fashion "endorses" the message here. At least, an easier case. Then, perhaps, a person might say a disclaimer alone would be enough, but not sure if it really would be.
Anyway, the overall concern might be enough that a limited content classification in this respect would be acceptable. ]
Meanwhile, in Germany.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!