In today's print edition of the Daily Journal (subscribers only), I report on an interesting point of trivia: Barack Obama will be the first president to be sworn in by a chief justice whose Senate confirmation he voted against.
The U.S. Senate Historical Office and several Supreme Court historians confirmed the little-known fact Wednesday.
Obama, of course, voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in September 2005.
As I note in the story:
Despite Obama's vote, it's unlikely to sour the occasion for either man, according to David J. Garrow, an expert on Supreme Court history who teaches at the University of Cambridge.
"We've got two gentlemen who are both smoother than silk in their style of personal interaction," he said. "I don't think it's going to loom large in any way."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Sonar Vote Not Easy To Decipher
Although the outcome of Wednesday’s decision by the Supreme Court to side with the U.S. Navy in its dispute against environmentalists was obvious, it wasn't so easy to definitively count the votes.
What we do know is that the court voted to lift a preliminary injunction imposed by a federal judge in Los Angeles. We also know that the 9th Circuit's modified order was vacated. But who voted for what? The case is Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 07-1239.
In Summary: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice John Paul Stevens joined part one of Breyer’s opinion, in which Breyer agreed that the district court’s injunction should be vacated. In the second part of Breyer’s opinion, he said that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ modified injunction should be kept in place until the Navy completed an environmental review. Finally, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion, in which she was joined by Justice David H. Souter.
The confusing vote here is Breyer’s, because although he agreed with the majority in terms of lifting the lower court restrictions, he ultimately became a dissenter by saying the 9th Circuit restrictions should remain in place. Therefore, the vote was 6-3 to remove all restrictions on the Navy, but 7-2 to vacate the lower court's preliminary injunction.
What we do know is that the court voted to lift a preliminary injunction imposed by a federal judge in Los Angeles. We also know that the 9th Circuit's modified order was vacated. But who voted for what? The case is Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 07-1239.
In Summary: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice John Paul Stevens joined part one of Breyer’s opinion, in which Breyer agreed that the district court’s injunction should be vacated. In the second part of Breyer’s opinion, he said that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ modified injunction should be kept in place until the Navy completed an environmental review. Finally, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion, in which she was joined by Justice David H. Souter.
The confusing vote here is Breyer’s, because although he agreed with the majority in terms of lifting the lower court restrictions, he ultimately became a dissenter by saying the 9th Circuit restrictions should remain in place. Therefore, the vote was 6-3 to remove all restrictions on the Navy, but 7-2 to vacate the lower court's preliminary injunction.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Court Sticks To A Family Friendly Script For Obscenity Argument
No-one dropped the f-bomb at the Supreme Court today.
That normally wouldn't be a surprise, but the argument in question was a high profile obscenity case.
Much to the disappointment of some court-watchers, the entire one-hour argument passed by without anyone uttering an expletive.
In FCC v. Fox, the broadcast networks are appealing a new Federal Communications Commission policy that would allow broadcasters to be punished for so-called "fleeting expletives," usually uttered by pop stars at awards shows.
In discussing in what context the words "fuck" or "shit" could be used on network TV, the justices and counsel referred to them simply as "the f-word" and "the s-word."
The late George Carlin, whose famous "Seven Dirty Words" routine led to the Supreme Court's most prominent ruling on the issue in FCC v. Pacifica, would no doubt be disappointed.
That normally wouldn't be a surprise, but the argument in question was a high profile obscenity case.
Much to the disappointment of some court-watchers, the entire one-hour argument passed by without anyone uttering an expletive.
In FCC v. Fox, the broadcast networks are appealing a new Federal Communications Commission policy that would allow broadcasters to be punished for so-called "fleeting expletives," usually uttered by pop stars at awards shows.
In discussing in what context the words "fuck" or "shit" could be used on network TV, the justices and counsel referred to them simply as "the f-word" and "the s-word."
The late George Carlin, whose famous "Seven Dirty Words" routine led to the Supreme Court's most prominent ruling on the issue in FCC v. Pacifica, would no doubt be disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
