And Also: Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration was a bit overwhelming given the amount of material summarized in around two hundred pages. But, her push for reform here using "the best empirical information available to prevent crime and improve the reentry of former prisoners into society" is well taken. I saw her at two panel discussions at NYU recently as well; she made her points well there too.
====
The end of the "March argument sitting" involved some significant cases and I will lead with that.
The biggest question is if there is a chance that a majority will be found to in some fashion reach the merits on partisan gerrymandering. Two people I look toward for an inside perspective are somewhat split -- one is more optimistic though both think there is a chance. Kavanaugh (who with Roberts, at least now, is crafting a new conservative moderate wing) seems to be key here. Gorsuch voiced support of independent commissions. Great. Roberts led the dissent on blocking them not that long ago. So, maybe that will be how they split the baby.
[One of the advocates against gerrymandering here won back in the day the first time around in the "one person, one vote" wars ... in the 1960s.]
The other issue this week that gets the most attention involves agency deference. The main event has a sort of administrative law "undercard" involving the necessary judicial review warranted in a case involving faxes. (The justices also got a view of the Stanley Cup, but as usual such news isn't referenced on their website. They did let the press know. Us peons can hear about it indirectly.) The main event is previewed here and various conservative justices have had some form of it in their sights for years. It's not judicial "activism" if you are right! There is to my understanding various ways to split the baby here so it is quite possible that a compromise will be fashioned. Overall, the basic idea that agencies should have deference over their own area of expertise makes sense. Such deference isn't absolute at any rate.
There has been a trend of sort this term that orders repeatedly had an interesting aspect or even something major. But, this week's order list was not of that caliber. No separate opinions or statements. The one notable thing seems to be turning down (again) a mystery corporation involved in the Mueller Investigation (who submitted "the" report last Friday, so this is timely enough ... AG Barr released a brief summary, but we don't know what's in the actual report yet). Various cases, including one or more abortion restriction, are still being considered.
We also had a few decisions but a lot of unanimity (e.g., one important SEC case was 7-2). A couple things were of mild interest. The interpretation of rules of service process case explicitly noted that the losing party (that got one vote) had a few decent arguments, partially a result of inexact crafting, but that as a whole the best ruling went the other way. A lesson: things aren't all or nothing. Also, Sotomayor (with RBG) concurred with Kagan's unanimous opinion restraining regulation of Alaska's Nation river (in a case involving a hovercraft), but warned to not take the opinon too far. To the degree it might suggest more regulatory restriction than warranted, she (like she did in another recent case) counseled Congress to clarify matters.
There will be a conference on Friday and an execution is scheduled for tomorrow. I will address that matter in a separate post.
====
The end of the "March argument sitting" involved some significant cases and I will lead with that.
The biggest question is if there is a chance that a majority will be found to in some fashion reach the merits on partisan gerrymandering. Two people I look toward for an inside perspective are somewhat split -- one is more optimistic though both think there is a chance. Kavanaugh (who with Roberts, at least now, is crafting a new conservative moderate wing) seems to be key here. Gorsuch voiced support of independent commissions. Great. Roberts led the dissent on blocking them not that long ago. So, maybe that will be how they split the baby.
[One of the advocates against gerrymandering here won back in the day the first time around in the "one person, one vote" wars ... in the 1960s.]
The other issue this week that gets the most attention involves agency deference. The main event has a sort of administrative law "undercard" involving the necessary judicial review warranted in a case involving faxes. (The justices also got a view of the Stanley Cup, but as usual such news isn't referenced on their website. They did let the press know. Us peons can hear about it indirectly.) The main event is previewed here and various conservative justices have had some form of it in their sights for years. It's not judicial "activism" if you are right! There is to my understanding various ways to split the baby here so it is quite possible that a compromise will be fashioned. Overall, the basic idea that agencies should have deference over their own area of expertise makes sense. Such deference isn't absolute at any rate.
There has been a trend of sort this term that orders repeatedly had an interesting aspect or even something major. But, this week's order list was not of that caliber. No separate opinions or statements. The one notable thing seems to be turning down (again) a mystery corporation involved in the Mueller Investigation (who submitted "the" report last Friday, so this is timely enough ... AG Barr released a brief summary, but we don't know what's in the actual report yet). Various cases, including one or more abortion restriction, are still being considered.
We also had a few decisions but a lot of unanimity (e.g., one important SEC case was 7-2). A couple things were of mild interest. The interpretation of rules of service process case explicitly noted that the losing party (that got one vote) had a few decent arguments, partially a result of inexact crafting, but that as a whole the best ruling went the other way. A lesson: things aren't all or nothing. Also, Sotomayor (with RBG) concurred with Kagan's unanimous opinion restraining regulation of Alaska's Nation river (in a case involving a hovercraft), but warned to not take the opinon too far. To the degree it might suggest more regulatory restriction than warranted, she (like she did in another recent case) counseled Congress to clarify matters.
There will be a conference on Friday and an execution is scheduled for tomorrow. I will address that matter in a separate post.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!