Of course, I concur in every word of the Court’s opinion. See United States v. Hough, 803 F.3d 1181, 1197 (11th Cir. 2015) (Carnes, C.J., concurring) (“Not surprisingly, as the author of the Court’s opinion I concur in all of it.”). Usually, there is nothing else for the author of a majority opinion to say, but here there is.There’s been a lot of this lately. Judge William Pryor has done it twice in the last couple of days, here and here. In fact, in the latter case the whole panel concurred, per Judge Pryor, with the majority opinion, written by Judge Pryor. But unlike Carnes’ concurrence, which was written to make some additional points, Pryor takes on prior precedent in the 11th Circuit in both of his concurrences. I wonder how conservative judges would have viewed the Pryor concurrences (saying the 11th Circuit had gotten it wrong in the past) had they been written by the more liberal wing of the 11th Circuit.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
“Of course, I concur in every word of the Court’s opinion.”
That’s Chief Judge Ed Carnes concurring with his own majority opinion in this case involving Royal Caribbean:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Reminds me of Mrs. Slocombe from "Are You Being Served?"
"And I am unanimous in this!"
of course she had better hair than Ed carnes
The conservatives would have screamed that Pryor is legislating from the bench, has no respect for precedent, makes decisions based on how he's feeling that day, is a Jimmy Carter liberal Judge, and would have buried his application so deep it would have popped up in Beijing.
Rumpole -- Pryor is not legislating from the bench in these opinions. He is following and applying precedent, and then writing special concurrences stating why he believes that the precedent he is bound to follow is misguided. Whatever the merit of his doing so, it is the exact opposite of legislating from the bench.
Silly argument. Judicial decisions become part of the law that is followed by subsequent courts. It is what judges have done for hundreds of years. Far more dangerous are the legislators who want to be super judges by imposing mandatory minimums, mandatory sentencing guidelines and removing all level of discretion from judges.
Post a Comment