No apparent notable actions during the orders but it is one of the time where individual justices provide their own comments.
Meanwhile, Sotomayor had another "I found another real bad lower court capital case [etc.] but since I don't have the votes, I'll just flag it and explain why I'm going along." Thomas had the dissent from denial in an EEOC (his old stomping ground) case, noting the circuit split was admittedly "shallow," but he thought the matter at hand was important. This shows that various methods to restrain judicial discretion are somewhat flexible.
Two opinions. With only Thomas dissenting, though RBG didn't like a footnote and Sotomayor/RBG flagged what was still left open, Alito applied a recent "but cause" principle to age discrimination claims. Note by the way that these make around twenty signed opinions with at least one by each justice except by Roberts. There were also a few per curiams and in theory he could have written one or more of them while dealing wiht impeachment or whatnot. This might suggest what ones of the remaining he particularly might have written though the rest are not evenly divided (BK probably is working on at least one opinion).
The whole case had an artificial feel to it -- so, okay, there is some reasonable grounds to think the person who owns a vehicle is driving, but then the person has a revoked license, which counts the other way. And, at one point the majority notes "The reasonable suspicion inquiry falls considerably short of 51% accuracy." Oh? A reasonable judgment would seem that it very well is something that on average would at least be more likely than not true. How far down are we going here now? Plus, the thinness of the record makes it feel a bit feigned. And, why did the officer do a check if there was no traffic offense? Did he do random records checks? And, Kagan's concurrence seems to if anything hurt the case -- if the license was merely suspended, that might make it more likely for the driver to break the rules on some level. Sotomayor's concerns for abuse seem sound on balance.
Another Friday/Monday Conference/virtual announcement coming up [Next week; this week is a holiday weekend.] And, then -- after the Wisconsin Supreme Court blocked its ability to avoid the issue by overturning the governor's move to delay the election (after the state legislature refused to address the situation) -- we have another late per curiam vs. a strong dissent for the liberals. Rick Hasen -- after earlier saying it is "awful" the governor late in the day delayed the election (yes, it is awful the legislature pushed him to do so to protect voters and democracy, thousands of vote at risk if people don't risk the polls, many that won't even be open tomorrow) -- said this bodes ill for November. We cannot hope the courts will save us there. Again, the blame is largely in the state legislature here.
(What happened when the 9/11 primary in New York occurred? The primary was postponed with the state legislature agreeing. The attacks was a compelling event that required special action. We didn't have to rely on the courts or governor because basically everyone did their job.)
The technicalities of the opinion can be parsed, but a 5-4 opinion dealing with a very special situation is far from something that compelled one position or the other. The dissent comes off as more compelling and various writers with more legal knowledge can spell out why. Ultimately, when the matter is in debate, voting rights should be protected. We might have more action, I guess, but ultimately what is the point of all of this for the Republican state legislature? To help win a court seat that isn't even a swing vote? Or, basically a distrust of democracy in the long run?
ETA: I expanded the 4A discussion. Also, this article flags that a voter purge case very well might turn on the judicial race, suggesting that the race might be something of a swing election after all. Looking it up, the judge running for re-election recused, resulting in a 3-3 tie since one of the conservatives on this point voted with the liberals. I don't know how often that happens, but that might help explain other than (as the article notes) general long-held Republican anti-democratic principle.
(The basic theme of that article is dubious since it basically complains about the liberal candidate in a judicial election being ideological. Yes, it is an election, that is going to happen. As to how principled the guy was for recusing, he is running for re-election. She is not in the same position. The idea one side is "activist" while the other side is "principled" conveniently in one ideological direction is tired stuff in the judicial context generally as seen by the results in the recent cases.)
In the case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to the WMATA's guidelines which preclude the sale of advertising space on public buses for issue-oriented advertising, including political, religious and advocacy ads. The ban includes ads "that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief." The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington wished to purchase space on the exterior of buses for its Christmas season "Find the Perfect Gift" ad.Gorsuch (with Thomas) flagged that if Kavanaugh actually took part in this case we would have 5-4 Court, but "because the full Court is unable to hear this case," they went along with the denial. Note that "religion" specifically wasn't targeted all by itself. I would think a 1970s opinion handled this, but since then we have had a strong protection of both free speech and religion in various respects. Who knows.
Meanwhile, Sotomayor had another "I found another real bad lower court capital case [etc.] but since I don't have the votes, I'll just flag it and explain why I'm going along." Thomas had the dissent from denial in an EEOC (his old stomping ground) case, noting the circuit split was admittedly "shallow," but he thought the matter at hand was important. This shows that various methods to restrain judicial discretion are somewhat flexible.
Two opinions. With only Thomas dissenting, though RBG didn't like a footnote and Sotomayor/RBG flagged what was still left open, Alito applied a recent "but cause" principle to age discrimination claims. Note by the way that these make around twenty signed opinions with at least one by each justice except by Roberts. There were also a few per curiams and in theory he could have written one or more of them while dealing wiht impeachment or whatnot. This might suggest what ones of the remaining he particularly might have written though the rest are not evenly divided (BK probably is working on at least one opinion).
When the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is driving the vehicle, an investigative traffic stop made after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.Thomas had a Fourth Amendment decision with only Sotomayor dissenting though Kagan had a folksy concurrence with RBG to flag it was fairly narrow on the facts provided. But, she didn't concur in judgment, so the overall principles of the majority would hold there too. The main opinion was a little over eight pages. Sotomayor with a pretty strong dissenting opinion concerned with giving the police benefit of the doubt and allegedly a "demographic profile" without looking at the individual judgments of the police involved was particularly problematic.
The whole case had an artificial feel to it -- so, okay, there is some reasonable grounds to think the person who owns a vehicle is driving, but then the person has a revoked license, which counts the other way. And, at one point the majority notes "The reasonable suspicion inquiry falls considerably short of 51% accuracy." Oh? A reasonable judgment would seem that it very well is something that on average would at least be more likely than not true. How far down are we going here now? Plus, the thinness of the record makes it feel a bit feigned. And, why did the officer do a check if there was no traffic offense? Did he do random records checks? And, Kagan's concurrence seems to if anything hurt the case -- if the license was merely suspended, that might make it more likely for the driver to break the rules on some level. Sotomayor's concerns for abuse seem sound on balance.
Another Friday/Monday Conference/virtual announcement coming up [Next week; this week is a holiday weekend.] And, then -- after the Wisconsin Supreme Court blocked its ability to avoid the issue by overturning the governor's move to delay the election (after the state legislature refused to address the situation) -- we have another late per curiam vs. a strong dissent for the liberals. Rick Hasen -- after earlier saying it is "awful" the governor late in the day delayed the election (yes, it is awful the legislature pushed him to do so to protect voters and democracy, thousands of vote at risk if people don't risk the polls, many that won't even be open tomorrow) -- said this bodes ill for November. We cannot hope the courts will save us there. Again, the blame is largely in the state legislature here.
(What happened when the 9/11 primary in New York occurred? The primary was postponed with the state legislature agreeing. The attacks was a compelling event that required special action. We didn't have to rely on the courts or governor because basically everyone did their job.)
The technicalities of the opinion can be parsed, but a 5-4 opinion dealing with a very special situation is far from something that compelled one position or the other. The dissent comes off as more compelling and various writers with more legal knowledge can spell out why. Ultimately, when the matter is in debate, voting rights should be protected. We might have more action, I guess, but ultimately what is the point of all of this for the Republican state legislature? To help win a court seat that isn't even a swing vote? Or, basically a distrust of democracy in the long run?
ETA: I expanded the 4A discussion. Also, this article flags that a voter purge case very well might turn on the judicial race, suggesting that the race might be something of a swing election after all. Looking it up, the judge running for re-election recused, resulting in a 3-3 tie since one of the conservatives on this point voted with the liberals. I don't know how often that happens, but that might help explain other than (as the article notes) general long-held Republican anti-democratic principle.
(The basic theme of that article is dubious since it basically complains about the liberal candidate in a judicial election being ideological. Yes, it is an election, that is going to happen. As to how principled the guy was for recusing, he is running for re-election. She is not in the same position. The idea one side is "activist" while the other side is "principled" conveniently in one ideological direction is tired stuff in the judicial context generally as seen by the results in the recent cases.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!