Running around like crazy the last few days, and then I see this straw man put up and knocked down by Rumpole on his blog. I will respond when I have a minute.
In the meantime, let me say that I obviously do not agree with Scalia's dissent in Holland, and I have not taken the position that Scalia is friendly to criminal defendants -- what I have said is that Scalia is the best friend that criminal defendants have on the Supreme Court (here's one of the first posts that got the debate started). That's not such high praise when the voting patterns of this Court are examined.
Anyway, more on this later when I have time to respond, and congrats to Todd Scher for the big victory.
Here are the 5 opinions that were decided today.
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
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Questions to ponder
I know, I know -- you're bored without Lost, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, 24, and Glee. At least there's Friday Night Lights, and True Blood just came back. And football is just around the corner. While you wait, here are some questions to think about this Monday night:
1. Was Justice Souter right? John McGinnis and Michael Rapparort think no way.
2. Should Clarence Thomas run for President in 2012? Kashmir Hill and David Lat say yes!
3. Should state judges be permitted to affiliate with a political party? Yes, says the 7th Circuit. Here's the opinion. (Should we expect a similar Florida lawsuit soon?) The 7th Circuit did say that state judges could not endorse political candidates or directly solicit for cash, just like here in Florida.
1. Was Justice Souter right? John McGinnis and Michael Rapparort think no way.
2. Should Clarence Thomas run for President in 2012? Kashmir Hill and David Lat say yes!
3. Should state judges be permitted to affiliate with a political party? Yes, says the 7th Circuit. Here's the opinion. (Should we expect a similar Florida lawsuit soon?) The 7th Circuit did say that state judges could not endorse political candidates or directly solicit for cash, just like here in Florida.
Supreme Court to issue many opinions today
There are 24 pending cases and not much time left -- the Court closes down at the end of June. It has issued a whopping 53 opinions this year... (It's unbelievable how few cases the modern Supreme Court hears).
The Court will be issuing a number of opinions today. I am running around this morning, but check in at ScotusBlog at 10am (they will have a live feed) for the list of opinions and then we can talk about them this afternoon.
UPDATE -- Only 4 decisions decided today. From ScotusBlog:
In Dolan v. United States (09-367), the Court affirms, in an opinion written by Justice Breyer. The vote is 5-4, with a dissent by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy.
Holding: A sentencing court that has missed the 90-day deadline may nevertheless order restitution, at least in some circumstances.
In Holland v. Florida (09-5327), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion again by Justice Breyer. The vote is 7-2. Justice Alito concurs in part and in the judgment, while Justice Scalia dissents, joined in part by Justice Thomas.
Holding: The Court permits equitable tolling of the habeas corpus filing deadline under the AEDPA.
In Astrue v. Ratliff (08-1322), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion by Justice Thomas. The vote is unanimous, but Justice Sotomayor files a concurrence joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg.
Holding: An individual who wins a case against the federal government and recovers attorney’s fees can have those offset if that individual owes a debt to the government.
In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder (09-60), the Court reverses, in an opinion by Justice Stevens. The vote is unanimous, though Justices Scalia and Thomas each file opinions concurring in the judgment only.
Holding: Second or subsequent crimes of possession of drugs are not aggravated felonies under federal immigration law when the underlying state conviction is not based on the fact that there was a prior conviction.
The Court will be issuing a number of opinions today. I am running around this morning, but check in at ScotusBlog at 10am (they will have a live feed) for the list of opinions and then we can talk about them this afternoon.
UPDATE -- Only 4 decisions decided today. From ScotusBlog:
In Dolan v. United States (09-367), the Court affirms, in an opinion written by Justice Breyer. The vote is 5-4, with a dissent by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy.
Holding: A sentencing court that has missed the 90-day deadline may nevertheless order restitution, at least in some circumstances.
In Holland v. Florida (09-5327), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion again by Justice Breyer. The vote is 7-2. Justice Alito concurs in part and in the judgment, while Justice Scalia dissents, joined in part by Justice Thomas.
Holding: The Court permits equitable tolling of the habeas corpus filing deadline under the AEDPA.
In Astrue v. Ratliff (08-1322), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion by Justice Thomas. The vote is unanimous, but Justice Sotomayor files a concurrence joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg.
Holding: An individual who wins a case against the federal government and recovers attorney’s fees can have those offset if that individual owes a debt to the government.
In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder (09-60), the Court reverses, in an opinion by Justice Stevens. The vote is unanimous, though Justices Scalia and Thomas each file opinions concurring in the judgment only.
Holding: Second or subsequent crimes of possession of drugs are not aggravated felonies under federal immigration law when the underlying state conviction is not based on the fact that there was a prior conviction.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Judge Middlebrooks excludes Judge Altonaga
More fun in the cop perjury trial that I just posted about below. Judge Middlebrooks granted the defense "Motion in Limine to Exclude Federal District Judge Cecilia Altonaga."
The government wanted to call Judge Altonaga to demonstrate that the police officers' testimony was material to the suppresion hearing. Judge Middlebrooks found that Judge Altonaga's proposed testimony would violate Rule 403 as a jury would give too much credence to a district judge's testimony.
Here's the entire order:Judge Middle Brooks Excludes Judge Altonaga
Too bad, I would have gone to see Richard Sharpstein cross-examine Judge Altonaga...
The government wanted to call Judge Altonaga to demonstrate that the police officers' testimony was material to the suppresion hearing. Judge Middlebrooks found that Judge Altonaga's proposed testimony would violate Rule 403 as a jury would give too much credence to a district judge's testimony.
Here's the entire order:Judge Middle Brooks Excludes Judge Altonaga
Too bad, I would have gone to see Richard Sharpstein cross-examine Judge Altonaga...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)