March 21, 2011

Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas and the Chief would like you to know that they do care about the privacy of your backyard.

But not when the decisions comes to them on review of a decision by a state intermediate appellate court. I mean, you've got your backyard privacy and they've got their Rule 10. The New Jersey Supreme Court didn't want to talk about it, so they don't want to talk about it.

9 comments:

Rick Caird said...

"But because this case comes to us on review of a decision by a state intermediate appellate court, I agree that today’s denial of certiorari is appropriate. See this Court’s Rule 10. It does bear mentioning, however, that “denial of certiorari does not constitute an expression of any opinion on the merits.”

Am I correct in asserting the denial was because the New Jersey Supreme Court had not yet ruled?

Carol_Herman said...

Rule #10? Every year the Supreme Court gets petitions. I think they have to be sent in 10 at a time for distribution. And, one for the records office.

As to a "right" that cert is granted, when did that happen? Most requests are not granted. That's why there is a Monday Conference at the court, where ONLY the justices gather together. And, close the door.

The last one selected to the court is tasked with distributing the coffee.

But everything inside that room is debated, to decide if a case is "worthy." If 4 votes are collected then the case gets in. And, the case has to represent an issue of interest.

Backyards have restrictions placed on them by local entities. Here, I know I can't put up fencing that would even reach eye level. What privacy do you get when you can just look into your neighbor's yard? And, yes. The cats go wherever they want to go. But not the dogs.

Ann Althouse said...

"Am I correct in asserting the denial was because the New Jersey Supreme Court had not yet ruled?"

There's no pending state supreme court case. They don't want to review the intermediate court, and that leaves the result where it is. Tough luck for the homeowners.

Now, it does signal that the Court is watching this issue, so next time it comes up somewhere, the state courts will pay more attention and give fuller treatment.

They want the issues more fully developed, and to be fair, this makes sense.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Wouldn't Rule 10(c) let them grant cert here?

Hagar said...

Must be quite a backyard if it has a "wetlands" in it.
I thought this group, and especially Scalia, were against this kind of over-reach.

john said...

Ann said -
Tough luck for the homeowners...
They [the Court]want the issues more fully developed, and to be fair, this makes sense.


To be "fair", it should not have required that the Hubers finance a stacked administrative court decision that could finally bankrupt them. To be "fair" the Court should have agreed that destroying Huber should not be the first step in educating supposedly already-educated Courts.

You make "fairness" sound so academic.

vnjagvet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vnjagvet said...

From their statement, Hagar, I infer they still are. They simply believe that SCOTUS should not review this case because New Jersey's highest court (the New Jersey Supreme Court) has not ruled on it.

that-xmas said...

If I'm not mistaken, the classification of "wetlands" is pretty loose at the state level.

I have feeling the Supreme Court wants get another crack at "wetlands" to fix Rapanos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapanos_v._United_States