The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[unofan]

How you define "ideological lines" if the case has no ideological component?

I can't see how ideology would affect a patent law case, for example....and it appears that more than half the cases have no discernible "ideological" component, being either a correction of procedural errors, or clarifying business / tax / trade / administrative issues.

The short answer is that such cases are unlikely to be split 5-4 to begin with. As divided as this court is, unanimous decisions are still the most common outcome, occurring roughly half the time.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

The short answer is that such cases are unlikely to be split 5-4 to begin with. As divided as this court is, unanimous decisions are still the most common outcome, occurring roughly half the time.

Do they always release decisions in the unanimous cases, or do they just do one of those "appellate decision reversed without comment" shivs, that basically say "the jackwagon who decided at the appeals level should be put out to stud"?

Stats aside, is this considered to be the most partisan Court ever, or were there awful Courts back in the day that made today's justices look nuanced and principled?

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Do they always release decisions in the unanimous cases, or do they just do one of those "appellate decision reversed without comment" shivs, that basically say "the jackwagon who decided at the appeals level should be put out to stud"?

Stats aside, is this considered to be the most partisan Court ever, or were there awful Courts back in the day that made today's justices look nuanced and principled?

Kep,

I doubt they would have granted cert in the first place if the case was capable of such summary disposition.

 

[unofan]

Do they always release decisions in the unanimous cases, or do they just do one of those "appellate decision reversed without comment" shivs, that basically say "the jackwagon who decided at the appeals level should be put out to stud"?

Stats aside, is this considered to be the most partisan Court ever, or were there awful Courts back in the day that made today's justices look nuanced and principled?

There are occasionally what are called summary reversals, but they aren't common. They're also typically done at the cert stage based on the briefs alone - once a case is granted and oral argument scheduled, it normally results in a full opinion. (Edit, the numbers are screwed up and appear to be mixed with last year's, so I can't tell which percentage this year fall into this category).

There are also what SCOTUSBlog calls GVRs, or Grant, Vacate, and Remands, which typically occur when a case involves the exact same issue as another case recently decided while the other one was pending. They don't count towards the stats, however.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

There are occasionally what are called summary reversals, but they aren't common. They're also typically done at the cert stage based on the briefs alone - once a case is granted and oral argument scheduled, it normally results in a full opinion. (Edit, the numbers are screwed up and appear to be mixed with last year's, so I can't tell which percentage this year fall into this category).

There are also what SCOTUSBlog calls GVRs, or Grant, Vacate, and Remands, which typically occur when a case involves the exact same issue as another case recently decided while the other one was pending. They don't count towards the stats, however.

Got it, thanks. The GVR was what I was thinking about. They may not mean them this way, but I always think of them as this.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Do they always release decisions in the unanimous cases, or do they just do one of those "appellate decision reversed without comment" shivs, that basically say "the jackwagon who decided at the appeals level should be put out to stud"?

Stats aside, is this considered to be the most partisan Court ever, or were there awful Courts back in the day that made today's justices look nuanced and principled?

Constitutionalists may look at the Warren and Burger Courts as well meaning but disasters.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Constitutionalists may look at the Warren and Burger Courts as well meaning but disasters.

Can we please stop calling Republican partisans "Constitutionalists"? It's an insult to Hamilton, Madison and Jay.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Can we please stop calling Republican partisans "Constitutionalists"? It's an insult to Hamilton, Madison and Jay.

The Democrats Kep, the Democrats, founded "Massive Resistance". It was the Republicans that desegregated the institutions.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Big day tomorrow.


(Potentially)

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

The Democrats Kep, the Democrats, founded "Massive Resistance". It was the Republicans that desegregated the institutions.

I am sure you know as well as I that what's left of the Dixiecrat constituency now lives happily in the Republican party.

Yes, the Dems housed those schnooks for too long. But when the Dems expelled them the GOP welcomed them in.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It's a 4 box day according to Lyle, which means either 7-8 opinions or a couple huge ones.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It's a 4 box day according to Lyle, which means either 7-8 opinions or a couple huge ones.

To what does a box refer in this context?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

To what does a box refer in this context?

I'm hoping it's tissues for Scalia.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Personally I hope they destroy Obamacare and strike down gay marriage. I want people to actually see and feel the consequences of their votes and I think that may actually finally do it.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

1st one is a death penalty case involving a mentally challenged person. 5-4 along ideological lines, Sotomeyer writing for the liberals and Kennedy.

 

[unofan]

To what does a box refer in this context?

The press room sets out boxes containing the opinions that they distribute to the media. The rough estimate is 2 opinions per box, unless it's a particularly long decision with lots of dissents.

 

[joecct]

1st one is a death penalty case involving a mentally challenged person. 5-4 along ideological lines, Sotomeyer writing for the liberals and Kennedy.

5-4 which way? Needle or life?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Personally I hope they destroy Obamacare and strike down gay marriage. I want people to actually see and feel the consequences of their votes and I think that may actually finally do it.

The Dubya presidency taught me that this doesn't work. No matter how terrible a mistake it is, the partisans never admit it, and in the meantime the rest of us who knew along it was a mistake suffer alongside them.

Never try to teach a pig to sing.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Personally I hope they destroy Obamacare and strike down gay marriage. I want people to actually see and feel the consequences of their votes and I think that may actually finally do it.

Dude, **** that. You don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

2nd one is by Alito for a unanimous court in a case involving the conversation clause in a child abuse case.

3rd one will also be from Alito. No word on it yet, though.