Comments on: Today’s Orders and Opinions http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/06/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/ 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: Jacob Berlove http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/06/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11297 Jacob Berlove Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:52:14 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11297 "In Bush v. Gore... there was no reasoning that commanded five votes." I believe that Justice Scalia's concurring opinion claimed to agree with the reasoning of the per curiam, only to be adding another ground for reversal. It then follows that the per curiae order to permanently end the recount on equal protection grounds since coming up with a new counting standard would not be possible before the statutory "safe harbor" deadline was an order whose reasoning had the support of a full court (namely the five conservative justices). “In Bush v. Gore… there was no reasoning that commanded five votes.”
I believe that Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion claimed to agree with the reasoning of the per curiam, only to be adding another ground for reversal. It then follows that the per curiae order to permanently end the recount on equal protection grounds since coming up with a new counting standard would not be possible before the statutory “safe harbor” deadline was an order whose reasoning had the support of a full court (namely the five conservative justices).

]]> By: Ken Jost http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/06/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11296 Ken Jost Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:26:41 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11296 The practice appears to be that per curiam decisions are announced from the bench in argued cases, but not in cases decided on a summary basis without oral argument. Thus, Claiborne was announced from the bench today; in like manner, Roper v. Weaver, which was digged after argument, was announced from the bench. Erickson was not announced from the bench, nor were any of the other summary per curiam decisions earlier this term. Bush v. Gore was released around 10 PM on Tuesday, December 12, 2000. It was not announced from the bench, but that was not because the decision was per curiam. The practice appears to be that per curiam decisions are announced from the bench in argued cases, but not in cases decided on a summary basis without oral argument. Thus, Claiborne was announced from the bench today; in like manner, Roper v. Weaver, which was digged after argument, was announced from the bench. Erickson was not announced from the bench, nor were any of the other summary per curiam decisions earlier this term.
Bush v. Gore was released around 10 PM on Tuesday, December 12, 2000. It was not announced from the bench, but that was not because the decision was per curiam.

]]> By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/06/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11295 Kent Scheidegger Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:17:33 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11295 <i>Erickson</i> is not unanimous. Erickson is not unanimous.

]]> By: Marc Shepherd http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/06/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11294 Marc Shepherd Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:14:55 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11294 Actually, I see that Justice Thomas did write separately (though briefly, and breaking no new ground) in the other P.C. case today. Actually, I see that Justice Thomas did write separately (though briefly, and breaking no new ground) in the other P.C. case today.

]]> By: Marc Shepherd http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/06/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11293 Marc Shepherd Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:59:21 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11293 You need to look at the reason why the decision came out as a Per Curiam. In Bush v. Gore, it was because there was no reasoning that commanded five votes, even though the individual Justices had quite substantial separate concurring and dissenting opinions. In today's P.C. decisions, there are no separate opinions. Both involve (in the Court's view) straightforward unanimous applications of well settled law. You need to look at the reason why the decision came out as a Per Curiam. In Bush v. Gore, it was because there was no reasoning that commanded five votes, even though the individual Justices had quite substantial separate concurring and dissenting opinions.

In today’s P.C. decisions, there are no separate opinions. Both involve (in the Court’s view) straightforward unanimous applications of well settled law.

]]> By: r.friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/06/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11292 r.friedman Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:52:09 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-and-opinions-8/#comment-11292 <p>What is the Court's policy on announcing per curiams from the bench? I'm pretty sure they announced Bush v. Gore, I doubt if they announced Claiborne. What about a 9th Circuit slapdown? And when they do it, who does it?</p> <p>roger friedman</p> What is the Court’s policy on announcing per curiams from the bench? I’m pretty sure they announced Bush v. Gore, I doubt if they announced Claiborne. What about a 9th Circuit slapdown? And when they do it, who does it?

roger friedman

]]>