Unanimity Continues
Today, the Supreme Court issued two opinions, both decided 8-0. While there are nine members on the Court, Justice O'Connor's vote in the cases does not count (since she's no longer on the Court), and Justice Alito cannot vote in a case that was argued before he was sworn in.
The first case is US v Grubbs, which involved the constitutionality of an anticipatory search warrant. Here in an opinion by Justice Scalia, the Court unanimously overturned a Ninth Circuit decision authored by Judge Stephen Reinhardt. None of that should be shocking to anyone who follows the Ninth in general and Judge Reinhardt in particular. There was a concurring opinion in regard to part III of the majority opinion. Justice Souter, joined by Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg, qualifies and sharpens a few points from part III. The trio warned against the broad statement that a warrant does not to spell out the condition that must exist before the warrant can be executed.
The other case was Merrill Lynch v. Dabit, a securities case. It's 17 pages of a topic that I hate, so I'm not going to read it. This opinion was written by Justice Stevens.
Most Supreme Court cases are unanimously decided, but I'm curious to see how long this keeps going. As a general rule, the most contentious cases are released later in the term. There's a long way to go and many more cases to decide.
The first case is US v Grubbs, which involved the constitutionality of an anticipatory search warrant. Here in an opinion by Justice Scalia, the Court unanimously overturned a Ninth Circuit decision authored by Judge Stephen Reinhardt. None of that should be shocking to anyone who follows the Ninth in general and Judge Reinhardt in particular. There was a concurring opinion in regard to part III of the majority opinion. Justice Souter, joined by Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg, qualifies and sharpens a few points from part III. The trio warned against the broad statement that a warrant does not to spell out the condition that must exist before the warrant can be executed.
The other case was Merrill Lynch v. Dabit, a securities case. It's 17 pages of a topic that I hate, so I'm not going to read it. This opinion was written by Justice Stevens.
Most Supreme Court cases are unanimously decided, but I'm curious to see how long this keeps going. As a general rule, the most contentious cases are released later in the term. There's a long way to go and many more cases to decide.
I think they were easy cases.
Sorry, you'll have to pick a fight with someone else. Try JDR.
Posted by
Steve |
6:35 PM
Once again, you prove that you read and listen to half of what I say. My point about Roberts was that increased amounts of discussion at conference may lead to different ways of tackling the issues. Ayotte is the best example of that. The Court took a narrow view of the abortion restriction law. They decided to not strike it down entirely as they would under a facial challenge, but to examine it narrowly, as applied.
I am not saying that Roberts is going to charm Stevens, Ginsburg, etc. into striking down Roe, Lawrence, McConnell or any other highly contested cases. I am saying that this narrow focus may produce more instances where statutes survive, minus a few as applied problems.
Posted by
Steve |
8:26 PM