The Supreme Court

[Green Habit]

Oh boy, Fisher v. UT was granted again. Affirmative action advocates should be very worried.

[Green Habit]

So the result of Glossip came out the way we thought, but this certainly didn't:

For it is those changes, taken together with my own 20 years of experience on this Court, that lead me to be­lieve that the death penalty, in and of itself, now likely constitutes a legally prohibited “cruel and unusual pun­ishmen[t].”

Breyer and Ginsburg have now joined the same club of Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens in coming to this conclusion late in their careers. Also interesting is that Sotomayor and Kagan didn't join--I guess they're still willing to tinker with the machinery of death.

[Biff Pocoroba]

I thought lethal injection might have declared cruel & inhumane.
But it doesn't resolve the issue of the shortage of the drugs that injected.

[Green Habit]

It looks like Scalia and Thomas also unleashed searing concurrences at Breyer's dissent. Scalia did the same thing to Stevens's opinion in Baze v. Rees. This end of term just keeps getting more interesting.

[Green Habit]

Other than those two I know there's a ruling on lethal injection waiting. What are the other remaining decisions concerning this term?

The one I'm really focused on is Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. I'm very worried that the Court is going to find redistricting commissions unconstitutional. If they do, that'll also take down Idaho's commission as well.

Woo-hoo!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 4_kjfl.pdf

[Green Habit]

Hah, Thomas is butthurt that the Court upheld a ballot initiative that he disapproves of, but struck down initiatives for banning SSM.

Reading today’s opinion, one would think the Court is a great defender of direct democracy in the States. As it reads “the Legislature” out of the Times, Places and Manner Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §4, the majority offers a paean to the ballot initiative. It speaks in glowing terms of the “characteristic of our federal system that States retain autonomy to establish their own governmental processes.” Ante, at 27. And it urges “[d]eference to state lawmaking” so that States may perform their vital function as “‘laboratories’”of democracy. Ante, at 28.

These sentiments are difficult to accept. The conduct of the Court in so many other cases reveals a different attitude toward the States in general and ballot initiatives in particular. Just last week, in the antithesis of deference to state lawmaking through direct democracy, the Court cast aside state laws across the country—many of which were enacted through ballot initiative—that reflected the traditional definition of marriage. See Obergefell v. Hodges, ante, p. ___.

[B]

Y'know, if you guys want anyone else to join you in debate, you're going to have to start assuming that some of us don't know all the details of all these cases based solely on the names of the parties involved. I think there are, like, 8 cases on this page alone that I have to google.

[4/5]

I'm pleasantly surprised about the redistricting case. I hope citizens in states around the country take up Ginsburg's suggestion to take the redistricting process away from their state legislatures. But that won't happen, I'm sure.

I'm surprised and a little confused that they are hearing Fischer again. Didn't they basically find that she didn't have standing the first time around?

[simple schoolboy]

Other than those two I know there's a ruling on lethal injection waiting. What are the other remaining decisions concerning this term?

The one I'm really focused on is Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. I'm very worried that the Court is going to find redistricting commissions unconstitutional. If they do, that'll also take down Idaho's commission as well.

Woo-hoo!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 4_kjfl.pdf

At least in California's case, the commission resolved nothing. Perhaps other states have better systems, but it hardly seems a cure all.

[Green Habit]

Y'know, if you guys want anyone else to join you in debate, you're going to have to start assuming that some of us don't know all the details of all these cases based solely on the names of the parties involved. I think there are, like, 8 cases on this page alone that I have to google.

Sorry man. I thought I tagged descriptions on a couple of those, and I guess I thought case names like Obergefell were well known enough.

[Green Habit]

I'm surprised and a little confused that they are hearing Fischer again. Didn't they basically find that she didn't have standing the first time around?

They held that the 5th Circuit didn't use the correct level of scrutiny, so they remanded it back to them...and they still found against Fisher. The speculation is that the Court wanted the 5th Circuit to do their work for them, but they had no intention of playing ball.

[Green Habit]

At least in California's case, the commission resolved nothing. Perhaps other states have better systems, but it hardly seems a cure all.

I think it's more of a matter of not letting things get worse.

[4/5]

I'm surprised and a little confused that they are hearing Fischer again. Didn't they basically find that she didn't have standing the first time around?

They held that the 5th Circuit didn't use the correct level of scrutiny, so they remanded it back to them...and they still found against Fisher. The speculation is that the Court wanted the 5th Circuit to do their work for them, but they had no intention of playing ball.

Are there conflicting Circuit decisions about Affirmative Action right now? Or is this another case that the Court is just choosing to hear like a few others this term that had no conflict?

I was reading, I think on scotusblog, which means you've read it already, that characterizing the decisions of this term as "liberal" kind of misses the point that they selected multiple cases that maybe "shouldn't" have been selected and they merely followed precedent for the most part. What's your take on that? As a casual observer I could be way off base.

[Green Habit]

Are there conflicting Circuit decisions about Affirmative Action right now? Or is this another case that the Court is just choosing to hear like a few others this term that had no conflict?

I honestly don't know. This Court has quite a few members hostile to the idea of affirmative action so it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a circuit split.

I was reading, I think on scotusblog, which means you've read it already, that characterizing the decisions of this term as "liberal" kind of misses the point that they selected multiple cases that maybe "shouldn't" have been selected and they merely followed precedent for the most part. What's your take on that? As a casual observer I could be way off base.

I completely agree that it's misleading. If this court was further to the left or right some cases never would have been heard and others where cert was denied would have been granted.

[B]

Y'know, if you guys want anyone else to join you in debate, you're going to have to start assuming that some of us don't know all the details of all these cases based solely on the names of the parties involved. I think there are, like, 8 cases on this page alone that I have to google.

Sorry man. I thought I tagged descriptions on a couple of those, and I guess I thought case names like Obergefell were well known enough.

I usually have no idea of the names of the cases. My experience is usually news stories like, "The Court ruled on a case that ...."

[@SkitchP]

B just assumes Brown Vs. The Board of Education is named for complexion.

[B]

B just assumes Brown Vs. The Board of Education is named for complexion.

[simple schoolboy]

At least in California's case, the commission resolved nothing. Perhaps other states have better systems, but it hardly seems a cure all.

I think it's more of a matter of not letting things get worse.

Get worse, how? Moreover, the plain language leaves it to the legislature to establish districts.

This is really all ignoring what really broke the US republican system: the 17th amendment.

[Green Habit]

At least in California's case, the commission resolved nothing. Perhaps other states have better systems, but it hardly seems a cure all.

I think it's more of a matter of not letting things get worse.

Get worse, how? Moreover, the plain language leaves it to the legislature to establish districts.

This is really all ignoring what really broke the US republican system: the 17th amendment.

I just see the initiative and referendum process as a power originating from the legislature in the first place. Plus, if the legislature doesn't like it it can always undo the law itself, regardless of whether that's politically wise or not.

And as for the 17th Amendment, I don't see how that's incompatible with republicanism. It's just taking one middleman out of the representation.

[Green Habit]

Adam Liptak has a keen eye on a possible case the Supreme Court could take if it wanted to start to declare solitary confinement to be cruel and unusual punishment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/us/vi ... .html?_r=1