If you are working, and are looking for some interesting reading, check out this article in the Washington Post about Supreme Court reasoning:
Twice this past week readers wondered why I had forgotten a key element of one of the most basic aspects of journalism: the old who-what-where-when-and-how.Judge Kopf believes Judge Arnold would have been excellent on the Supreme Court. President Clinton was close to nominating him instead of Breyer. As I've said before Justice Breyer is one of the most conservative Justices on the Supreme Court as it relates to criminal justice issues, so things would have been quite different had Arnold made it instead.
It was clear what the Supreme Court had done, they said, but where’s the why? There’s a pretty good defense for that, though it is frustrating for all: The justices never gave their reasons.
In an incredibly consequential first week of the term, the court allowed same-sex marriages to proliferate around the nation, temporarily put on hold and then gave the green light to rulings ending the bans in Idaho and Nevada, and refereed state laws governing voting in next month’s midterm elections.
All without explanation.
With all this Supreme Court talk, you should check in with ScotusBlog tomorrow for new Court orders and cert grants.
Wasn't there press coverage that the stays in the 9th Circuit were done by mistake?
ReplyDeleteI am closed today. I close when the Courthouse is closed. Of course, what does that really mean? I am monitoring emails, taking calls and checking out your blog anyway.
ReplyDeleteJudge Arnold died in 2004 when his cancer came back. His history of cancer was the reason Clinton didn't nominate him. If he had gone with Judge Arnold, then GWB would have been able to nominate someone even more conservative than Breyer on criminal issues and, more importantly, on a broad range of other issues. So Clinton, though it pained him to pass over his friend, made a smart move in going with someone else.
ReplyDelete