Comments on: Today’s Opinion and Order List http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/05/todays-opinion-and-order-list/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: federalist http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/05/todays-opinion-and-order-list/#comment-9563 federalist Mon, 22 May 2006 17:44:04 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-opinion-and-order-list/#comment-9563 I seem to recall that Justice Stevens issued a concurrence in a denial of cert. from a Ninth Circuit case a few years ago in which he said he agreed with the denial of cert. because the result of the case was to toss a long sentence for gang recruitment. Stevens explicitly stated that the denial of cert. was not to be construed as approving the law as stated in the lower court. Could it be that Stevens cares more about the result of a particular case, as it impacts the parties themselves, than the rest of the Justices? Stevens' comment about the prosecutors appealing the decision up to the Supreme Court is somewhat strange. It is abundantly clear, as Kent notes, that this decision has real world ramifications for victims of domestic violence. And the clarification of the law here is helpful, as some courts, as noted in the opinion, had gone a bit astray. I guess the real question here is why this case was not simply reversed per curiam. I seem to recall that Justice Stevens issued a concurrence in a denial of cert. from a Ninth Circuit case a few years ago in which he said he agreed with the denial of cert. because the result of the case was to toss a long sentence for gang recruitment. Stevens explicitly stated that the denial of cert. was not to be construed as approving the law as stated in the lower court.

Could it be that Stevens cares more about the result of a particular case, as it impacts the parties themselves, than the rest of the Justices?

Stevens’ comment about the prosecutors appealing the decision up to the Supreme Court is somewhat strange. It is abundantly clear, as Kent notes, that this decision has real world ramifications for victims of domestic violence. And the clarification of the law here is helpful, as some courts, as noted in the opinion, had gone a bit astray.

I guess the real question here is why this case was not simply reversed per curiam.

]]> By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/05/todays-opinion-and-order-list/#comment-9562 Kent Scheidegger Mon, 22 May 2006 15:33:20 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-opinion-and-order-list/#comment-9562 Justice Stevens' concurrence is really a restatement of his long-standing disagreement with <i>Michigan</i> v. <i>Long</i>, that the Supreme Court can and should take a criminal procedure case when a state court decision in favor of the defendant is ambiguous whether it relies on the state or federal constitution. If one takes <i>Long</i> as given, there is nothing peculiar about the decision of the prosecution to seek certiorari or the decision of the Court to grant it. The state court's erroneous decision could have endangered victims of domestic violence in future cases by causing police to refrain from entering until assault escalates to major violence, possibly homicide. In addition, the objective/subjective split resolved by the Court's opinion has importance far beyond the misdemeanor charges in this case. The implication in Justice Stevens' opinion that the Court should not grant certiorari in minor controversies that resolve important questions of law is what is peculiar. Surely he knows better. Justice Stevens’ concurrence is really a restatement of his long-standing disagreement with Michigan v. Long, that the Supreme Court can and should take a criminal procedure case when a state court decision in favor of the defendant is ambiguous whether it relies on the state or federal constitution.

If one takes Long as given, there is nothing peculiar about the decision of the prosecution to seek certiorari or the decision of the Court to grant it. The state court’s erroneous decision could have endangered victims of domestic violence in future cases by causing police to refrain from entering until assault escalates to major violence, possibly homicide. In addition, the objective/subjective split resolved by the Court’s opinion has importance far beyond the misdemeanor charges in this case.

The implication in Justice Stevens’ opinion that the Court should not grant certiorari in minor controversies that resolve important questions of law is what is peculiar. Surely he knows better.

]]>