It’s somehow uncivil or illogical to note the politics of a judge or the person who appointed the judge, but it’s just peachy to insinuate that the SC is motivated by animus against liberal decisions from the 9th circuit.

I seem to recall from previous threads that it’s also out of bounds to say that the 9th circuit has a disproportionate number of wacky decisions, which by sheer coincidence would be the only explanation other than animus for increased scrutiny of their decisions.

Interesting array of conversational norms. It’s almost as if someone is covering for some group.

I have never owned or used a cell phone, in part because of the lack of privacy, but also because I still value being left alone until I choose not to be left alone, and my exclusive use of a land telephone line with message-taking capability serves that purpose admirably. While I do not question that cell phones are of value in many circumstances, the need to be in constant communication with everyone and anyone at all times has become a widespread obsession in our society, although I suppose what others obsess over is none of my business.

The California State Bar has said it will soon require every member to have a working e-mail address. So now a computer and an Internet connection are compulsory if one wants to practice law. I suppose the day is not far off when the California State Bar will require its members to have a working cell phone number, too, perhaps with a mobile Internet connection, so that it can pester them 24/7 in its frantic efforts to justify its outrageous membership fees. And like little lambs, the membership will meekly accept it.

[OK Comments: But why squish now? It's so much more fun to squish when there's a split.]

Regarding Pinholster, I was rather amused by Judge Smith’s rebuke to Chief Judge Kozinski in the majority opinion:

“Despite our dissenting colleague’s well-known flair for ‘creative’ writing, it is not appropriate for a federal appellate court to conjure up evidence that does not exist…”

To the legal issue, maybe some justices wants to craft something more specific than the general balancing test of O’Connor. Or maybe they want to add another hurdle for employees claiming Constitutional violations by public employers, as the court did for First Amendment claims with Garcetti. The third-party provider does seem to make things more complicated, though.

Would an administrative subpoena by the governmental body seeking Quon’s texts (assuming such authority exits) obviate a 4th Amendment challenge?

For example, last week, an en banc 9th Circuit panel decided a death penalty case, Pinholster v. Ayers. Chief Judge Kozinski wrote a sharply worded cert. petition in the form of a dissent. The liberal majority assigned the case to Judge Milan Smith, a relatively conservative Bush43 appointee, who brought along Judge Bybee.

As a result, an en banc panel with a 6-5 liberal/conservative split ended up voting 8-3 to grant habeas relief on the penalty phase. While I believe Pinholster still has a high probability of a cert. grant, I also believe the odds are slightly lower than if Judge Reinhardt, as opposed to Judge Smith, had written the majority opinion.