SCOTUSblog covers the Court live here. Announcements begin at 10 ET.
ADDED: Here's a SCOTUSblog post clearly stating the issues in the remaining cases. That post is from last Wednesday, so it includes a few cases that were decided last Thursday. There are 6 more cases to be announced, but it's unlikely that all will be announced today, even though today is the last scheduled day for announcing opinions. There will probably be another day later this week.
UPDATE: "Montana campaign is summarily reversed, five to four." So... the occasion for reconsidering Citizens United is over. [Here's some background on the Montana case, where the state supreme court had a decision which did not give adequate respect to Citizens United.]
UPDATE 2: "The Court holds that the Eighth Amendment forbids a scheme of life in prison without possibility of parole for juveniles." A 5-4 decision, written by Justice Kagan. Justice Alito writes the dissenting opinion. "[I]t is relatively rare for a Justice to read a dissent from the bench but not unheard of."
UPDATE 3: The 9th Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part in Arizona v. United States. "Most of the key provisions of SB1070 (3 of 4) are invalidated. One provision is held not to be proved preempted; it must be construed.... The provision that the Court says is not yet preempted is the 'check your papers' provision that commands officers to check immigration status."
२५ जून, २०१२
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६ टिप्पण्या:
Nope. Not...gonna...do it. Too tense.
Besides the Obamacare and AZ cases, what's left to whittle through?
Ace of Spades has a run-down on other decisions
The live blog at SCOTUSblog has its "plain English" statements of the issues in all of the remaining cases. There are 6 of them.
I'm watching from England, where it's the middle of the afternoon local time and hour 26 since we got out of bed (we took an overnight flight and arrived a few hours ago).
If I had to guess, we won't get healthcare today. It's a big, complex case; the odds have to favor a big, complex opinion with several dissents. The odds also favor Roberts writing it. So I think it'll be the very last thing to come down, and unless we get every remaining opinion for the term today, I think it's more likely that healthcare will be at the next sitting, probably weds. or thurs.
Simon, you have to learn to sleep on an airplane.
Shouldn't the need for so many references to the Plain English versions of these cases kinda nudge us that's somethings screwy in Denmark (or the US, as it were)? This isn't C++, after all.
In researching starting a legal code from scratch after TSHTF, one of the themes that kept coming up was the desire for laws to be clear enough for the average citizen to understand.
ACA will be the last, and then a fast flight out of town.
I've asked Amy and Tom over at that live SCOTUSblog stream a couple times, but nobody seems to know.
Do the Justices have drama consultants on retainer?
I am hoping it is announced before Rush Limbaugh goes on the air.
Well, I agree with the 5-4 decision against life in prison for juveniles. I'm not surprised legislators passed something like that. I guess they thought they had to "do something". Maybe now they can focus on doing something, you know, good.
I think I can guess who the 5 and the 4 are.
There should be a music score by Dimitri Tiomkin or Jerome Moross just to add to the tension.
Scott M said...
Shouldn't the need for so many references to the Plain English versions of these cases kinda nudge us that's somethings screwy in Denmark (or the US, as it were)? This isn't C++, after all.
Only wusses comment.
If it was hard to code, it should be hard to understand.
If it was hard to code, it should be hard to understand.
LOL, tell that to the Climategate crowd. Seriously, though, shouldn't the law of the land be a tad more Plain English?
It's called the Constitution.
We've gone downhill ever since.
UPDATE 3: The 9th Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part in Arizona v. United States. "Most of the key provisions of SB1070 (3 of 4) are invalidated. One provision is held not to be proved preempted; it must be construed.... The provision that the Court says is not yet preempted is the 'check your papers' provision that commands officers to check immigration status."
I hate it when they can't make up their minds.
If the SCOTUS rules against Arizona 5-4, doesn't that just mean the court has become too activist and that we should expand the number of Justices to 19? Or 23? Or something?
Cue the Bernard Hermman score....
US v. AZ, was a 5-3 decision. Kagan recused, Roberts joined the "liberal" Justices (kind of intriguing, since he is "supposedly" writing the Obamacare decision - - makes you wonder if he wasn't trying for a quid pro quo?).
I'm sure that no one's watching anymore, but SCOTUSblog just posted (not sure how they know this) that there are strong indications that the healthcare decision is being written by the Chief Justice. Interesting!
"The provision that the Court says is not yet preempted is the 'check your papers' provision that commands officers to check immigration status."
-- I thought that was the most important part of the statute. They can't report any one up the chain if they can't check their status. That's wonky.
HotAir says Obamacare ruling on Thursday.
They too speculate it'll be a Robert's opinion - - and here's the clencher, with Kennedy.
tim in vermont said...
Simon, you have to learn to sleep on an airplane
No. no. As long as you're awake and alert the plane still flies. As soon as you fall asleep the mental effort it takes to keep the plane in the air is weakened and the plane is prone to falling out of the sky. I thought everyone knew this.
It also helps the plane fly if you grip the armrests as hard as you can and pull up when the plane leaves the ground. No doing this can mean the plane may never become airborne.
MM:
It is fine to agree with a decision as a matter of policy, but how can one defend it as a matter of law? In the "juveniles sentenced to life without parole" case the USSC is acting as a super-legislature. If your child were brutally murdered by a 17 year old what would YOUR policy preference be? How do we decide such things?
"Cruel and unusual" means whatever Anthony Kennedy thinks it means.
If your child were brutally murdered by a 17 year old what would YOUR policy preference be? How do we decide such things?
I think there should be the possibility of parole. A teen brain just isn't fully functioning yet -- I'm living with one and believe me it's true. Postpone the parole decision to when they're 30 or so.
MM, I understand that is your policy preference. Why would your, or Anthony Kennedy's policy preference define "cruel and unusual"? You like the OUTCOME here- is it a good procedure for reaching that outcome?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा