The five cases (including a separate campaign finance appeal that is handled differently) that were taken for review are discussed by Amy Howe. A sentencing related case is discussed here. As usual, there are various interesting cases, but nothing too "hot button."
The most notable there is a case involving "a Christian group after the city of Boston denied the group’s request to raise its flag – bearing a Latin cross." Other groups got to do that, so it is likely that they will too, this crew not likely to realize the Establishment Clause problems involved.
There is a matter of "governmental speech," which arguably can make this different from something like adding a cross to a bunch of other displays. A flagpole has special meaning there. And, yes, this is often framed as a free speech issue, though when you are dealing with crosses and other religious matters, it is more than that. But, again, I'm not too optimistic. This might be one of those "disappointments" Sotomayor talked about.
Live Audio: The first three months of arguments ("sessions") will have live audio, the public and certain members of the press still not allowed. In the past, you could go to the C-SPAN website to check out live audio and later in the day the Supreme Court would have transcripts and an audio link. Now, there will be a live audio link on the Supreme Court's own website. Slowly, the Supreme Court makes things a bit less difficult for public access.
Charming: Prof. Segall, a nice guy who I disagree with on certain subjects, has a podcast where he talks with fellow law professor types. He recently talked with Prof. Lain, who nicely emailed a while back about a comment I wrote among her guest blogging in 2015 regarding the death penalty. I saved other emails, but don't seem to have that one. Too bad.
She nicely also engaged with me on Twitter regarding the death penalty (the subject of the podcast), including citing something where Justice White during the Furman v. Georgia negotiations suggested he supported ending the death penalty. (The comment is a bit opaque though.) The accounts I have read, especially The Brethren, if anything suggests he was more open to it coming back later on. It's one of those things where you read familiar stuff and an interesting bit is tossed in that is new.
(I read a few books covering the history of the death penalty, including the back/forth in the 1970s, but don't recall that tidbit. I might be forgetting something, of course, since there is so much details in these books. She phrased something in her summary in the podcast that I found iffy, but you know, one should be humble when dealing with experts.)
Anyway, I again appreciate how various people engage with me, not an expert, online. Plus, in general, she seems a charming person overall.
Kavanaugh Gets COVID: In a reminder why we wear masks even when we are vaccinated, Kavanaugh tested positive even after getting vaccinated. The Supreme Court gets regular testing and it showed that our lying partisan rapey judge [not "justice" in my book] is positive with the Big V, if without symptoms. On Friday, it was reported he will take part in oral arguments next week remotely
This also shows the realities of the day. People -- a few senators tested positive a few weeks back -- will get COVID. Early on, Tom Hanks did. It is not generally some sort of death sentence though for some people it very well is. It is something that will have to be factored in with the right amount of care and concern.
Sotomayor Watch: I will just quote Amy Howe:
"The Supreme Court refused on Friday to block New York City’s requirement that all public-school employees be vaccinated for COVID-19. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from the area that includes New York, turned down a request from four of the city’s public-school employees to temporarily block the enforcement of the mandate while they litigate their challenge in the lower courts. The city planned to enforce the mandate beginning at 5 p.m. on Friday."
As she notes, Barrett weeks back also on her own refused to block a mandate regarding university students from Indiana though again one from there is less likely to be broad enough to get one in trouble. Still, other than perhaps the issue I addressed separately, I think vaccine mandates in general will be upheld. Not that I am assured about that in all cases.
Supreme Court Triggered: Joan Biskupic talks about the "anger" of the "justices" (not a word I would use for Barrett) though Sotomayor of the five seems from the coverage mostly to be upset at results (she began to talk about the ability of people in Texas to change the law and caught herself). Biskupic generally plays it cool, but this seems like a bit of snark on her part:
Breyer, too, has criticized journalists and politicians for identifying justices by the presidents who appointed them and their political parties. The Bill Clinton appointee also argues that the current 6-3 split at the high court does not reflect politics or ideology but rather jurisprudential methods.
She also references how Alito "tried" to make a case. Ha ha. The pessimistic note that there isn't much that is likely to happen with them having life tenure and no major changes (heck any changes will be something) seemingly on the horizon. But, the judges seem to think the situation is troubled enough that they have to say something.
Alito is just someone who gets triggered and Thomas has some of that too, but when so many are talking at once, it's somewhat notable. I appreciate Sotomayor, who at times keeps it a bit more real though tosses in the usual bromides at times too. She surely keeps it more real in her opinions, even if like some of us, we rather there not be so many dissents.
Oh well. Something of a busy week.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!