What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Few more opinions this morning.

Camreta v. Greene - 7-2 decision that is basically a bunch of technical legalese. Court basically stated it could review appeals from prevailing parties in circumstances, but not here since it's now moot. No substantive issues decided. Dissent said they would never grant cert on such issues.

United States v. Tinklenberg - speedy trial case. Likewise nothing to substantive. Simply says pretrial motions toll the speedy trial clock, regardless of whether they ultimately delay the trial or not. 8-0 decision, though some only concurred with certain parts.

Fowler v. United States - a federal murder case involving the federal witness tampering statute - don't know too much about this one or how big a deal it is. 7-2 opinion by Breyer, Alito and Ginsburg dissenting.

Last one of the day is a biggie - Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. The first of what is likely to be several Arizona immigration cases int he coming years. 5-3 opinion by Roberts affirming the lower court, says the Arizona law requiring business to check the immigration status of workers is not pre-empted as Congress specifically said states could impose restrictions with regards to business licenses and other similar issues. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg. Sotomeyer also dissents separately. Kagan recused. Thomas only joined in parts of the majority opinion and the judgment.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I didn't realize the Arizona law case was coming out. Good to see the law upheld. Not sure if this is any indication of how future Arizona immigration law cases will go, specifically SB1070.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Bob Gray said:
I didn't realize the Arizona law case was coming out. Good to see the law upheld. Not sure if this is any indication of how future Arizona immigration law cases will go, specifically SB1070.
Click to expand...

I'd tend to think it isn't, as this ruling seems vary narrow. The entire argument seemed to have been over what Congress meant by "licensing and similar laws" when it enacted its federal statute on the issue 20 some years ago - which won't come into play with SB1070.

Sotomeyer's dissent essentially says the exception swallows the rule: what is the complete revocation of a business license if not a civil penalty (which is expressly pre-empted)? Breyer basically says "licensing" can't mean what Arizona says it does, because that's just too darn broad and makes it too easy to racially discriminate in the hiring process.

Frankly I'm ok with this ruling - Congress carved out a niche, which Arizona took advantage of. I'd be shocked if SB1070 isn't viewed with more skeptisism when it takes its turn at the plate, though.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

More opinions out this morning:

Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB - 8-1 decision by Alito in a patent case. Kennedy dissented.

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - 8-0 decision by Scalia (Kagan recused), though Kennedy, joined by Breyer, Ginsberg, and in part by Sotomeyer, filed a concurrance (which might have been the majority opinion if Kagan wasn't recused) - Ninth Circuit reversed.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

More opinions out today, as the Court is trying to finish up the 31 cases left by the end of the month. Still 2 left from November, including the video games case, and one from December.

First out is a case involving frivilous lawsuits. - Fox v. Vice. unanimous opinion by Kagan says parties can recover expenses when a claim contains both frivilous and non-frivilous claims, but only as to the "extra" expenses caused by the frivilous claims.

Next up is McNeil v. U.S. - another unanimous opinion, this time by Thomas. Case involves a federal statute increasing the sentences for "serial serious criminals."
Pretty technical issue that involved whether a change in state law post-conviction could be used to count an offense as a serious one; the Court said no - all that counts is what the law was at the time of conviction.

3rd one today is a 7-2 decision by Roberts in Board of Trustees v. Roche Molecular Systems regarding the rights to federally funded inventions. Sotomeyer concurred, Breyer dissented (joined by Ginsberg)

And that's it for today. 28 to go. Opinions should be released bi-weekly from here on out on Mondays and Thursdays.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Actually, I spoke too soon. There is one more out.

Erica John Fund v. Halliburton - unanimous decision also by Roberts involving class certification in a securities fraud case. Court finds plaintiffs need not prove causation just to certify as a class.

so 27 to go.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

There's probably 3 really big ones left out of the 27 still sitting in front of the Court: The video games case, the gender discrimination in citizenship case, and the wal-mart class-action case. The first two, by the way, are the two still left from the November sitting of the Court.

A few other noteable ones that are unlikely to garner as many headlines but might be of some interest:
Sykes v. U.S. - does fleeing from police in a vehicle constitute a "violent felony"? I'd say no (dangerous, yes, but not inherently violent), but clearly at least some people on the court think otherwise, especially in the context of a high speed chase.
Stren v. Marshall - the underlying legal issues are dry as hell as tehy relate to bankruptcy law, but it's notable because it's the second time in front of the Court for the late Anna Nicole Smith.
AZ Free Ent. Club v. Bennett - a natural follow-up to last year's Citizens United, do the first and 14th amendments prohibit states from using triggers to up the money pot for candidates running a campaign using public money? My guess is this law gets shot down, as the Court's likely to find it penalizes the privately funded candidate from raising more money by giving the opponent more public funds in response. Though I'm personally hard pressed to accept the proposition that giving one person money infringes on the speech of another. Nevertheless, the Court tends to look vary warily upon any campaign finance laws.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
More opinions out this morning:

Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB - 8-1 decision by Alito in a patent case. Kennedy dissented.

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - 8-0 decision by Scalia (Kagan recused), though Kennedy, joined by Breyer, Ginsberg, and in part by Sotomeyer, filed a concurrance (which might have been the majority opinion if Kagan wasn't recused) - Ninth Circuit reversed.
Click to expand...
The Ninth Circuit does not have a good record on SCOTUS appeals, do they?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

joecct said:
The Ninth Circuit does not have a good record on SCOTUS appeals, do they?
Click to expand...

No circuit does, honestly, except for maybe the 3rd, and a lot of that is simply that the 3rd doesn't get too many cases taken up by SCOTUS. If a circuit bats .500 for a given term, it's done alright. Normally 2/3rds-3/4ths of cases are overturned.

State Supreme Courts tend to fare the worst, actually.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
No circuit does, honestly, except for maybe the 3rd, and a lot of that is simply that the 3rd doesn't get too many cases taken up by SCOTUS. If a circuit bats .500 for a given term, it's done alright. Normally 2/3rds-3/4ths of cases are overturned.
Click to expand...

Makes sense though, right? The Court's only going to hear the "interesting" cases, and interesting usually means reversal.

The better measure would be what percentage of all decisions are reversed, and that's much smaller.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
Makes sense though, right? The Court's only going to hear the "interesting" cases, and interesting usually means reversal.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, "interesting" for the Supremes generally means either an issue where the circuit was making law and they disagree with the law that was made (or, less often, they agree, but think it's something that needs their own opinion), an issue where the circuits are in disagreement and they want to settle it, or an issue where they want to reverse their own previous ruling.

Out of that lot, the first is by far the most common, so it stands to reason that there would be a majority of reversals.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

More opinions out this morning. 27 left to go for the term, which ends at the end of the month.

Also of note, the Court has only granted 20 cases for cert for next year (was 21, but one settled), well short of what is normally granted by this point.

First up is DePierre v. US - unanimous opinion by Sotomeyer in a case involving a distinction between crack and cocaine as it relates to mandatory minimum sentences.

Next is Microsoft v. i4i - another unanimous decision also by Sotomeyer with Roberts recused. Breyer (joined by Alito and Scalia) joins the opinion in full but adds a concurrance with extra thoughts. Patent case which is dry as hell, involves the evidentiary standard used for a defense in a patent case.

America v. Michigan Bell - yet another unanimous decision, this time by Thomas with Scalia concurring. Case involves FCC rules in telecommunications.

4th up is Sykes v. U.S. - a case I mentioned below regarding high speed chases and "violent felonies" - a 6-3 decision by Kennedy holding that fleeing the police does constitute a violent felony for sentence enhancement purposes. Scalia dissents, and Kagan also dissents (joined by Ginsberg). Thomas concurs. This is also the first case of the term where Sotomeyer and Kagan have disagreed. Scalia's dissent is pretty awesome, taking a strong jab at Congress.

And that's it for today. 23 decisions to go, including the video games case and the wal-mart class action.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Some quotes from Scalia's dissent in Sykes

We try to include an ACCA residual-clause case in about every second or third volume of the United States Reports...Insanity, it has been said, is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. Four times is enough. We should admit that ACCA’s residual provision is a drafting failure and declare it void for vagueness.
Click to expand...
But what about the test that determined the outcome in our second case in this “series”—the “purposeful, violent, and aggressive” test of Begay? Fear not. That incompatible variation has been neither overlooked nor renounced in today’s tutti-frutti opinion.
Click to expand...
And no surprise that our indulgence of imprecisions that violate the Constitution encourages imprecisions that violate the Constitution. Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation is attractive to the Congressman who wants credit for addressing a national problem but does not have the time (or perhaps the votes) to grapple with the nitty-gritty. In the field of criminal law, at least, it is time to call a halt.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
Some quotes from Scalia's dissent in Sykes
Click to expand...

Even though I'm happy with the general grounds of Scalia's dissent, you can really tell how much of a complete a-hole he is from that opinion. SCOTUS decisions aren't really the appropriate place to thump the tub. Leave that for his lucrative speaking engagements.

That last quote could be right out of some pundit's column. Silly.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Meh, I'll take a Scalia opinion over a Kennedy one any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Kennedy almost tries too hard to avoid offending the other side, and results in opinions that are barely comprehensible to legal scholars, let alone the general public. At least Scalia you know where he stands and why.

And I'll admit, I enjoy reading judicial opions that break from the standard mold and actually show the judge isn't a robot. Roberts once wrote a dissent from a lack of granting of cert in a film-noire style (the case involved police actions). Yes, I'm a geek, but that kind of stuff is great.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
Roberts once wrote a dissent from a lack of granting of cert in a film-noire style (the case involved police actions). Yes, I'm a geek, but that kind of stuff is great.
Click to expand...

That's cool. If you could dig that up I'd love to read it.
 
Kepler said:
That's really, really funny (though on the dissent itself, good god, man, really? Why not just throw out the need for evidence in all police proceedings -- **** thing gets in the way so often.)
Click to expand...
He could have shot them both and claimed "drug sale gone bad". It used to work in a certain Maryland County.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

joecct said:
He could have shot them both and claimed "drug sale gone bad". It used to work in a certain Maryland County.
Click to expand...

As a lawyer friend of mine says, "North Philly is probable cause."

news-1.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top