There are various books on justices coming out (Roberts, O'Connor, Stevens [autobiography] and Thomas [later in year], after another biography of Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out last year. I suppose Sotomayor will also release some other autobiographical work or something too. Meanwhile, including by the person I recently referenced seeing, various criminal justice books are or did come out. For all you candidates out there.
Meanwhile, there was some Supreme Court action this week with another conference scheduled for Friday and more orals next week. Following recent trends, there was news even when they only released orders. The big news is probably that they will take up non-unanimous juries (one state left though the case covers Louisiana, the John Legend supported change not retroactive). Legend argued that they promoted racism, dissenting voices purposely blocked out as a matter of white supremacy. Unlike more popular non-usage of grand juries or civil juries for small claims, this has a good shot of going his way because it is an outlier to have a federal requirement not apply to the states.
The other cases are of interest as well including rules regarding the right to make an insanity defense. As she has over the years, Sotomayor also has a solo statement concerned about criminal justice issues, in this particular instance evidence a racist juror was involved in a capital case. The government was also asked to add their .02 in a few cases, including one involving alleged religious discrimination in employment. The latter issue has been something a few conservative justices have also flagged in various contexts though apparently not when someone was about to die.
We had two decision days. A thing that stood out was that the two Trump picks split in all three cases on Monday though only as a matter of scope on the big case of the day. The case had a somewhat narrow specific question regarding the statutory power to detain certain non-citizen aliens (including lawful residents; not just so-called "illegals") without bail hearings. But, as noted here, as well as the dissent (Breyer dissented from the bench for the liberals), there is a wider principle and likely future effect involved. Likewise, to the degree the provision can have various possible meanings, what might be deemed "Footnote 4 constitutional avoidance" should be guided more Breyer's way. This is so even if the ultimate solution here is changing the actual law.
Kavanaugh wrote for the Court with Gorsuch writing for the "High Federalists" (himself, Alito and Thomas) in a maritime liability case. It's useful to remember that (like in today's special case so bad everyone but maybe Thomas can join in against racism) the problem with the two Trump picks was not that they will always be wrong. Kavanaugh was a divisive partisan hack who bullshitted (at best) Congress and had a strong case that he was a sexual predator. Gorsuch filled a stolen seat while being a run of the mill Federalist Society baby (plus, he comes off as smarmy). So, e.g., maybe Gorsuch will turn out (inspired in some way by being on a court of appeals covering over seventy tribes) friendly to Native Americans. Not going to suddenly handwave how he got there.
There was less heat in today's opinions, one a per curiam (with merely Justice Thomas not joining the punt), the other a unanimous debt collection case. My interest there was Sotomayor's brief concurrence in effect saying "eh ... not sure ... but the majority does the best job we can and if Congress thinks we are wrong, they can fix it." A honest response to various statutory questions which result in what is a basic (if less exciting for most) part of the justices job -- someone has to settle these questions. They very well might not be right each time, but they are "Supreme." Plus, in these statutory cases, a legislative fix (if at times hard to come by) is possible.
Notable oral arguments. Along with next week, the Court deals with some more racial and political gerrymander stuff. The results are unclear. Next week also brings the sensitive question of the reach of "deference" to federal agencies. There is a range of options there as well. As noted above, today also involved an apparently blatant case of racial discrimination in jury selection, which gives conservatives a chance to join in against racism. Maybe, Thomas figured he was the only one somewhat sympathetic and that is why he asked a question. He last did it in regard to the reach of a regulation on guns with only Sotomayor joining his dissent (and not the 2A portion). He has asked good questions in the past. And, even if they are bad, doing so provides advocates a chance to respond to his atypical views. OTOH, maybe Breyer serves as his mouthpiece at times?
Spring begins 5:58 P.M.
Meanwhile, there was some Supreme Court action this week with another conference scheduled for Friday and more orals next week. Following recent trends, there was news even when they only released orders. The big news is probably that they will take up non-unanimous juries (one state left though the case covers Louisiana, the John Legend supported change not retroactive). Legend argued that they promoted racism, dissenting voices purposely blocked out as a matter of white supremacy. Unlike more popular non-usage of grand juries or civil juries for small claims, this has a good shot of going his way because it is an outlier to have a federal requirement not apply to the states.
The other cases are of interest as well including rules regarding the right to make an insanity defense. As she has over the years, Sotomayor also has a solo statement concerned about criminal justice issues, in this particular instance evidence a racist juror was involved in a capital case. The government was also asked to add their .02 in a few cases, including one involving alleged religious discrimination in employment. The latter issue has been something a few conservative justices have also flagged in various contexts though apparently not when someone was about to die.
whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry
We had two decision days. A thing that stood out was that the two Trump picks split in all three cases on Monday though only as a matter of scope on the big case of the day. The case had a somewhat narrow specific question regarding the statutory power to detain certain non-citizen aliens (including lawful residents; not just so-called "illegals") without bail hearings. But, as noted here, as well as the dissent (Breyer dissented from the bench for the liberals), there is a wider principle and likely future effect involved. Likewise, to the degree the provision can have various possible meanings, what might be deemed "Footnote 4 constitutional avoidance" should be guided more Breyer's way. This is so even if the ultimate solution here is changing the actual law.
Kavanaugh wrote for the Court with Gorsuch writing for the "High Federalists" (himself, Alito and Thomas) in a maritime liability case. It's useful to remember that (like in today's special case so bad everyone but maybe Thomas can join in against racism) the problem with the two Trump picks was not that they will always be wrong. Kavanaugh was a divisive partisan hack who bullshitted (at best) Congress and had a strong case that he was a sexual predator. Gorsuch filled a stolen seat while being a run of the mill Federalist Society baby (plus, he comes off as smarmy). So, e.g., maybe Gorsuch will turn out (inspired in some way by being on a court of appeals covering over seventy tribes) friendly to Native Americans. Not going to suddenly handwave how he got there.
There was less heat in today's opinions, one a per curiam (with merely Justice Thomas not joining the punt), the other a unanimous debt collection case. My interest there was Sotomayor's brief concurrence in effect saying "eh ... not sure ... but the majority does the best job we can and if Congress thinks we are wrong, they can fix it." A honest response to various statutory questions which result in what is a basic (if less exciting for most) part of the justices job -- someone has to settle these questions. They very well might not be right each time, but they are "Supreme." Plus, in these statutory cases, a legislative fix (if at times hard to come by) is possible.
Notable oral arguments. Along with next week, the Court deals with some more racial and political gerrymander stuff. The results are unclear. Next week also brings the sensitive question of the reach of "deference" to federal agencies. There is a range of options there as well. As noted above, today also involved an apparently blatant case of racial discrimination in jury selection, which gives conservatives a chance to join in against racism. Maybe, Thomas figured he was the only one somewhat sympathetic and that is why he asked a question. He last did it in regard to the reach of a regulation on guns with only Sotomayor joining his dissent (and not the 2A portion). He has asked good questions in the past. And, even if they are bad, doing so provides advocates a chance to respond to his atypical views. OTOH, maybe Breyer serves as his mouthpiece at times?
Spring begins 5:58 P.M.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!