And Also: I tossed in some other legal matters in the content of this post but also added to the side panel a timely book (including given D Day just passed) regarding Sophie Scholl and the White Rose movement. I saw a German film years ago on her as well and liked it. An article on Svengoolie and marketing was good too.
Today was an orders/opinion day and there will be another one on Thursday -- there are around twenty more cases to handle in the next few weeks. Nothing really of note among the orders from what I can tell though a few curious tidbits such as "SEALED APPELLANT V. SEALED APPELLEE" that was granted/vacated per a recently decided case. Also, the opinion of the Solicitor General was asked in some cases with human rights implications. The Arlene Flowers marriage case is open.
I have been reading Adam Winkler's (he also wrote a good book on the history of gun regulation) book We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights. A lot of material, so it has to be skimmed, and we get most of the focus on Supreme Court action. It's best not to see this in a one note fashion, particularly when we are talking about media and non-profit corporations. To me a specific concern is that corporations being a form of legal "person" is not the same thing as them being "We the People" or exactly like natural persons.
One notable bit is that often it is a good thing to treat corporations as "persons," since that can mean the government treats it differently, since it is a special sort of "artificial person." The other approach is to ignore the corporate form and look behind it to the persons who make up it or speech it promotes. Consider the Bellotti case, e.g., where the special nature of the corporation (including the problem of split shareholder consent, which was a major concern in an early 20th Century matter cited in the book) is flagged by the dissent (White with Brennan/Marshall; Rehnquist separately). White's dissent is worthy of emphasis.
Back to today. Four cases decided. One was evenly decided after a conflict from the 1980s involving Kennedy was flagged. RBG (with Sotomayor, as is her wont at times, differing some) handled a civil procedure matter. Kagan, with Gorsuch dissenting alone (tossing in a cite from the 13th Century), handled a case that accepted a divorce procedure that was challenged on Contract Clause grounds. And, the big news -- the Supreme Court by a predictable 5-4 vote (accounts flagged the challenge was in trouble) upheld the Ohio policy in a voter registration dispute applying two national laws regarding the proper means to update registration rolls.
The statutory argument was deemed "close" by Rick Hasen and basically it is a matter of tiebreakers. He calls the result "unfortunate," which is at times c'est la vie, but in this case the liberal dissenters (Sotomayor highlighting the discriminatory impact) appear to have a workable argument. Meanwhile, Alito provided a "strong" conservative reply, which is basically his job. Me, I think a good rule of thumb is when it's between Alito v. Breyer and Trump v. Obama, the latter is a good call.
Anyway, this appears to be a thumb of the scale (not Shelby level bad) voter suppression result, if one where the battle is still on. Especially later this year (NY federal primary is the end of this month) and 2020.
===
One more thing. There was an interesting article in the NYT regarding nitrogen gas as a means of execution, which is the latest thing. A few, including Justice Sotomayor in Glossip, flagged the firing squad, but this is promoted as the latest in best practices as to death executions. It is more comprehensive than an op-ed against its usage (the person supports oral drugs) though he was cited. Note this passage:
---
* As I mentioned in a comment here, the person even sent an attachment of the article, which I might otherwise not have obtained.
Note it is part of an ongoing series of posts there and at Concurring Opinions involving the amendment process, arising from putative recent ratifications (and rescission, there in the past) of the ERA. The question split the people in some curious ways, but the bottom line for me is that I think too much time passed for us to ratify, which very well might be a thing to worry about since counting recent votes would mean we are but one away!
The issue of rescission is to me less clear-cut though precedent and Article V text (speaks of ratification alone; that is, one way) is telling. Also, if there are any blanks, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the upper hand there.
Today was an orders/opinion day and there will be another one on Thursday -- there are around twenty more cases to handle in the next few weeks. Nothing really of note among the orders from what I can tell though a few curious tidbits such as "SEALED APPELLANT V. SEALED APPELLEE" that was granted/vacated per a recently decided case. Also, the opinion of the Solicitor General was asked in some cases with human rights implications. The Arlene Flowers marriage case is open.
I have been reading Adam Winkler's (he also wrote a good book on the history of gun regulation) book We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights. A lot of material, so it has to be skimmed, and we get most of the focus on Supreme Court action. It's best not to see this in a one note fashion, particularly when we are talking about media and non-profit corporations. To me a specific concern is that corporations being a form of legal "person" is not the same thing as them being "We the People" or exactly like natural persons.
One notable bit is that often it is a good thing to treat corporations as "persons," since that can mean the government treats it differently, since it is a special sort of "artificial person." The other approach is to ignore the corporate form and look behind it to the persons who make up it or speech it promotes. Consider the Bellotti case, e.g., where the special nature of the corporation (including the problem of split shareholder consent, which was a major concern in an early 20th Century matter cited in the book) is flagged by the dissent (White with Brennan/Marshall; Rehnquist separately). White's dissent is worthy of emphasis.
Back to today. Four cases decided. One was evenly decided after a conflict from the 1980s involving Kennedy was flagged. RBG (with Sotomayor, as is her wont at times, differing some) handled a civil procedure matter. Kagan, with Gorsuch dissenting alone (tossing in a cite from the 13th Century), handled a case that accepted a divorce procedure that was challenged on Contract Clause grounds. And, the big news -- the Supreme Court by a predictable 5-4 vote (accounts flagged the challenge was in trouble) upheld the Ohio policy in a voter registration dispute applying two national laws regarding the proper means to update registration rolls.
The statutory argument was deemed "close" by Rick Hasen and basically it is a matter of tiebreakers. He calls the result "unfortunate," which is at times c'est la vie, but in this case the liberal dissenters (Sotomayor highlighting the discriminatory impact) appear to have a workable argument. Meanwhile, Alito provided a "strong" conservative reply, which is basically his job. Me, I think a good rule of thumb is when it's between Alito v. Breyer and Trump v. Obama, the latter is a good call.
Anyway, this appears to be a thumb of the scale (not Shelby level bad) voter suppression result, if one where the battle is still on. Especially later this year (NY federal primary is the end of this month) and 2020.
===
One more thing. There was an interesting article in the NYT regarding nitrogen gas as a means of execution, which is the latest thing. A few, including Justice Sotomayor in Glossip, flagged the firing squad, but this is promoted as the latest in best practices as to death executions. It is more comprehensive than an op-ed against its usage (the person supports oral drugs) though he was cited. Note this passage:
Veterinary experts generally do not recommend nitrogen or other inert gases for euthanizing mammals. Responses to the gas vary according to species, and in its 2013 guidelines, the American Veterinary Medical Association said, “Current evidence indicates this method is unacceptable because animals may experience distressing side effects before loss of consciousness.”The op-ed was cited separately and the guidelines linked and the quotation was not there. Some form of the article, or at least the quote, can be found by doing a search a few places. So, the matter interested me, and I sent a message to both of the authors of the piece via the NYT online link provided. Denise Grady nicely replied (I asked another blog related author a question and she too replied* -- the Internet is charming at times):
The quote came from the World Society for the Protection of Animals, not the veterinary association. My error. I had information from both and mixed them up.The citation has not been changed yet though. Oh well. I sent another line and the same person said it will be corrected. [Update: It has been.] I sent a note regarding a couple typos in a SCOTUSBlog article and they were fixed right way. No judgments -- I'm a typo machine.
---
* As I mentioned in a comment here, the person even sent an attachment of the article, which I might otherwise not have obtained.
Note it is part of an ongoing series of posts there and at Concurring Opinions involving the amendment process, arising from putative recent ratifications (and rescission, there in the past) of the ERA. The question split the people in some curious ways, but the bottom line for me is that I think too much time passed for us to ratify, which very well might be a thing to worry about since counting recent votes would mean we are but one away!
The issue of rescission is to me less clear-cut though precedent and Article V text (speaks of ratification alone; that is, one way) is telling. Also, if there are any blanks, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the upper hand there.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!