The denial of Alabama's emergency application in Lee has two possible explanations. But because it was unexplained, it's not clear which was doing the work.
My first thought with respect to Abouammo was the "investigation" of trans-care hospitals in Maryland, New York, California, out of the North District of Texas. I thought it's a good reminder that any cases brought will not be in the NDT.
First, is it incorrect to think that a silent (no opinion) order denying relief relies on the ruling of the last lower court to rule as sufficient such as to render unnecessary any further attention from the Court?
Second, given the nation’s celebration of its 250th birthday, should we be concerned that the remaining cases of real importance will be announced in a way that manipulates the timing for politically symbolic purposes?
Thanks for sharing the excerpt from West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. I found myself comparing Justice Jackson's eloquence to the opinions we see today. Not so much eloquence now. I was also struck by seeing the Pledge of Allegiance in paragraph 2 of the syllabus. So very short, and it reads very well without "under God" to modify "one nation."
SCOTUS has been publicly shamed by the sharp Vladeck spotlight, and perhaps the one thing Steve is wrong about is that it can handle the load, and so now it withdraws to chambers to pen some mighty opinions for this year's close.
The quote from Justice Jackson (did you say 83 years ago?) is stunningly beautiful. At first I thought I was reading an opinion from our current justice Jackson., Who is also eloquent. Given that I am not a lawyer and I don’t know all of this history I would love to know more about the context in which justice Jackson was writing. Thank you for your wonderful posts.
I went to the link to see what this case was. Noticed that it occurred before “under God” was added to the pledge. I think the original version was stronger.
I think very much that the people saying that an execution method is valid and not cruel and unusual punishment should be made to witness the effect. How supposedly-strict-doctrinal Catholics (potentially Opus Dei and pre-Vatican II supporters) can support which their religion teaches them is always unacceptable.
Also, the sheer irony that these methods are untested because research into the methods using animals would be unethical.
That was a eloquent quote of Justice Jackson in his opinion in the 1942 case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. As an academic exercise, I read the one dissent by Justice Frankfurter, and it was not even in the same league with Jackson. It was a very tedious read, and one can conclude after slogging through it that Frankfurter would likely feel well at home with the likes of Thomas and Alito today. Economy of style or clarity wasn't his strong suit in this dissent, and after all those words used, it is hard to discern what really set him off, other than he thought the Supreme Court was injecting policy views into this decision, and not legal ones. Hmm. He should have looked in the mirror after writing it. Frankfurter's dissent is loaded with policy views.
Thanks for an excellent explication of the 8th Amendment issues — especially how the Reactionary Justices have set up “doctrinal traps.” Why are these Justices making it more difficult for ordinary people to prevail in asserting their constitutional rights? It’s getting to the point where corporations have rights than people and “property rights” are protected more than human rights.
Thank you!
My first thought with respect to Abouammo was the "investigation" of trans-care hospitals in Maryland, New York, California, out of the North District of Texas. I thought it's a good reminder that any cases brought will not be in the NDT.
Steve:
Thanks.
Two other questions.
First, is it incorrect to think that a silent (no opinion) order denying relief relies on the ruling of the last lower court to rule as sufficient such as to render unnecessary any further attention from the Court?
Second, given the nation’s celebration of its 250th birthday, should we be concerned that the remaining cases of real importance will be announced in a way that manipulates the timing for politically symbolic purposes?
Thanks for sharing the excerpt from West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. I found myself comparing Justice Jackson's eloquence to the opinions we see today. Not so much eloquence now. I was also struck by seeing the Pledge of Allegiance in paragraph 2 of the syllabus. So very short, and it reads very well without "under God" to modify "one nation."
SCOTUS has been publicly shamed by the sharp Vladeck spotlight, and perhaps the one thing Steve is wrong about is that it can handle the load, and so now it withdraws to chambers to pen some mighty opinions for this year's close.
"why the lack of any explanation for that outcome is, yet again, a pretty big problem"
On the shadow docket. Still a thing, Mr. Baude.
The quote from Justice Jackson (did you say 83 years ago?) is stunningly beautiful. At first I thought I was reading an opinion from our current justice Jackson., Who is also eloquent. Given that I am not a lawyer and I don’t know all of this history I would love to know more about the context in which justice Jackson was writing. Thank you for your wonderful posts.
I went to the link to see what this case was. Noticed that it occurred before “under God” was added to the pledge. I think the original version was stronger.
The Secretary of Defense could certainly benefit from a reading of the Barnette case. Thanks for a reading that actually is appropriate for Flag Day.
I think very much that the people saying that an execution method is valid and not cruel and unusual punishment should be made to witness the effect. How supposedly-strict-doctrinal Catholics (potentially Opus Dei and pre-Vatican II supporters) can support which their religion teaches them is always unacceptable.
Also, the sheer irony that these methods are untested because research into the methods using animals would be unethical.
That was a eloquent quote of Justice Jackson in his opinion in the 1942 case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. As an academic exercise, I read the one dissent by Justice Frankfurter, and it was not even in the same league with Jackson. It was a very tedious read, and one can conclude after slogging through it that Frankfurter would likely feel well at home with the likes of Thomas and Alito today. Economy of style or clarity wasn't his strong suit in this dissent, and after all those words used, it is hard to discern what really set him off, other than he thought the Supreme Court was injecting policy views into this decision, and not legal ones. Hmm. He should have looked in the mirror after writing it. Frankfurter's dissent is loaded with policy views.
Thanks for an excellent explication of the 8th Amendment issues — especially how the Reactionary Justices have set up “doctrinal traps.” Why are these Justices making it more difficult for ordinary people to prevail in asserting their constitutional rights? It’s getting to the point where corporations have rights than people and “property rights” are protected more than human rights.