Comments on: So . . . Where Are The (Argued) Supreme Court Opinions? Part III http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/ Commentary on law, public policy, and more Tue, 08 May 2012 01:46:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Manuel Noriega, the Supreme Court, and the War on Terror http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-721067 The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Manuel Noriega, the Supreme Court, and the War on Terror Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:13:27 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-721067 [...] Roberts, who was the author of the majority opinion in Medellin.  (Or perhaps, as discussed in earlier posts, it may just be that everything is gummed up because of Citizens [...] [...] Roberts, who was the author of the majority opinion in Medellin.  (Or perhaps, as discussed in earlier posts, it may just be that everything is gummed up because of Citizens [...]

]]> By: Wednesday Round-up | SCOTUSblog http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-703942 Wednesday Round-up | SCOTUSblog Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:20:20 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-703942 [...] controversy surrounding it, and NPR also comments on the continuing anticipation over Citizens. The Volokh Conspiracy’s John Elwood speculates that the delay on the ruling might indicate that the Justices are [...] [...] controversy surrounding it, and NPR also comments on the continuing anticipation over Citizens. The Volokh Conspiracy’s John Elwood speculates that the delay on the ruling might indicate that the Justices are [...]

]]> By: Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » So . . . Where Are The (Argued) Supreme Court Opinions? Part III -- Topsy.com http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-703925 Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » So . . . Where Are The (Argued) Supreme Court Opinions? Part III -- Topsy.com Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:00:59 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-703925 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Campaign Diaries and Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: So . . . Where Are The (Argued) Supreme Court Opinions? Part III: The Supreme Court released decisions in four .. http://bit.ly/6i1tub [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Campaign Diaries and Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: So . . . Where Are The (Argued) Supreme Court Opinions? Part III: The Supreme Court released decisions in four .. http://bit.ly/6i1tub [...]

]]> By: Rodger Lodger http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-703916 Rodger Lodger Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:48:04 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-703916 I thought -- but I wouldn't swear to it in court -- that the maiden opinion of a new justice is unanimous. Yet we have J. Thomas's concurrence in J. Sotomayor's first. Yes, I'll go there: evidence of a personal rivalry/dislike emanating from Thomas, J.? This speculation is more valuable than that surrounding a certain golfer whose name escapes me. I thought — but I wouldn’t swear to it in court — that the maiden opinion of a new justice is unanimous. Yet we have J. Thomas’s concurrence in J. Sotomayor’s first. Yes, I’ll go there: evidence of a personal rivalry/dislike emanating from Thomas, J.? This speculation is more valuable than that surrounding a certain golfer whose name escapes me.

]]> By: Syd Henderson http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-703788 Syd Henderson Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:41:53 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-703788 And I also petition the Court for a "click for more" button. Or an exclude option. And I also petition the Court for a “click for more” button. Or an exclude option.

]]> By: Syd Henderson http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-703787 Syd Henderson Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:39:45 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-703787 <em>Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers </em>: a case 120 years in the making! Well, okay, but doesn't it sound like it should be a case from the 19th Century? Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers : a case 120 years in the making!

Well, okay, but doesn’t it sound like it should be a case from the 19th Century?

]]> By: Guest poster http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-703756 Guest poster Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:47:22 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-703756 There's a fairly obvious reason they would have waited this long -- in order to let Justice Sotomayor announce the first opinion of the Term. It's not a coincidence that three other, shorter opinions came out on the same day. Mohawk might have taken longer than the others, given that (a) she is new; (b) there is a separate opinion from Justice Thomas; and (c) it is a little longer than the other opinions. There’s a fairly obvious reason they would have waited this long — in order to let Justice Sotomayor announce the first opinion of the Term. It’s not a coincidence that three other, shorter opinions came out on the same day. Mohawk might have taken longer than the others, given that (a) she is new; (b) there is a separate opinion from Justice Thomas; and (c) it is a little longer than the other opinions.

]]> By: micdeniro http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-703743 micdeniro Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:20:18 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-703743 I'll join in re Lindgren's 5:43 post. I quit science (I refer to myself as a recovering isotopist) and became a lawyer partly so I wouldn't have to read the scientific literature anymore. Now for something completely different, I thought. It looks like Nature (the journal) has broken out on the VC. More incorporation doctrine, less incorporation of anti-doctrinaire science from other blogs. I’ll join in re Lindgren’s 5:43 post.

I quit science (I refer to myself as a recovering isotopist) and became a lawyer partly so I wouldn’t have to read the scientific literature anymore.

Now for something completely different, I thought.

It looks like Nature (the journal) has broken out on the VC.

More incorporation doctrine, less incorporation of anti-doctrinaire science from other blogs.

]]> By: Shelby http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-703730 Shelby Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:41:11 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-703730 Because Jim Lindgren's 5:43 post has blocked comments, I post here: My kingdom for a "Click for More" button Because Jim Lindgren’s 5:43 post has blocked comments, I post here:

My kingdom for a “Click for More” button

]]> By: A. http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-703694 A. Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:05:52 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-703694 It's really unfortunate that Jim Lindgren feels the need to repost other blogs' content without contributing almost anything of his own (rather than just linking, like a normal blogger), feels the need to post giant treatises without using cuts (thereby pushing all the other conspirators way down, out of sight), and feels it reasonable to top it all off by closing comments, all for many posts in a row. What a terrible blogger he is, and what a disservice he is doing to the VC. It’s really unfortunate that Jim Lindgren feels the need to repost other blogs’ content without contributing almost anything of his own (rather than just linking, like a normal blogger), feels the need to post giant treatises without using cuts (thereby pushing all the other conspirators way down, out of sight), and feels it reasonable to top it all off by closing comments, all for many posts in a row. What a terrible blogger he is, and what a disservice he is doing to the VC.

]]> By: Vasco http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-703672 Vasco Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:26:41 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-703672 Michigan v. Fisher wasn't unanimous. Michigan v. Fisher wasn’t unanimous.

]]> By: David H. http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/comment-page-1/#comment-703667 David H. Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:15:46 +0000 http://volokh.com/?p=22978#comment-703667 I think it's interesting to note SCOTUS has yet to hand down anything that's not unanimous. There were quite a lot of <em>per curiam</em>s handed down in November, and the first four published opinions might as well be <em>per curiam</em>. I think perhaps that the Court is getting "the easy ones" out of the way, and taking their times sending memos back and forth on the cases that are in negotiation. And we have no idea what kind of wrench Sotomayor (never a quiet one) is throwing into their opinion drafting process. I think it’s interesting to note SCOTUS has yet to hand down anything that’s not unanimous. There were quite a lot of per curiams handed down in November, and the first four published opinions might as well be per curiam. I think perhaps that the Court is getting “the easy ones” out of the way, and taking their times sending memos back and forth on the cases that are in negotiation. And we have no idea what kind of wrench Sotomayor (never a quiet one) is throwing into their opinion drafting process.

]]>