Comments on: Final Briefs in Danforth v. Minnesota http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/09/final-briefs-in-danforth-v-minnesota/ 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: Roger Friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/09/final-briefs-in-danforth-v-minnesota/#comment-11941 Roger Friedman Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:14:37 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/final-briefs-in-danforth-v-minnesota/#comment-11941 Not on an act of grace theory. Not on an act of grace theory.

]]> By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/09/final-briefs-in-danforth-v-minnesota/#comment-11940 Kent Scheidegger Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:58:11 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/final-briefs-in-danforth-v-minnesota/#comment-11940 Do you perhaps have the Kansas AG confused with his predecessor, Roger? Saying that a state can limit a remedy of its own creation on retroactivity and saying it can discriminate on the basis of suspect classifications are quite different things. Do you perhaps have the Kansas AG confused with his predecessor, Roger?

Saying that a state can limit a remedy of its own creation on retroactivity and saying it can discriminate on the basis of suspect classifications are quite different things.

]]> By: Roger Friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/09/final-briefs-in-danforth-v-minnesota/#comment-11939 Roger Friedman Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:47:35 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/final-briefs-in-danforth-v-minnesota/#comment-11939 <p>I don't see that much difference between Kansas' position and that of NACDL and ACLU. All of them limit Teague to federal habeas. Kansas relies on the proposition that state habeas is not required by due process, as well as the internal logic of Teague.</p> <p>But Kansas clearly goes too far -- just watch what happens if it tries to say that state habeas corpus is available only to white, native-born Kansans. And of course, if Kansas chooses to dispense with habeas corpus, federal habeas is waiting with no deference to state courts and no exhaustion requirements. Maybe the Kansas AG should go back to defending the creationists on the State Board of Education.</p> I don’t see that much difference between Kansas’ position and that of NACDL and ACLU. All of them limit Teague to federal habeas. Kansas relies on the proposition that state habeas is not required by due process, as well as the internal logic of Teague.

But Kansas clearly goes too far — just watch what happens if it tries to say that state habeas corpus is available only to white, native-born Kansans. And of course, if Kansas chooses to dispense with habeas corpus, federal habeas is waiting with no deference to state courts and no exhaustion requirements. Maybe the Kansas AG should go back to defending the creationists on the State Board of Education.

]]> By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/09/final-briefs-in-danforth-v-minnesota/#comment-11938 Kent Scheidegger Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:55:05 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/final-briefs-in-danforth-v-minnesota/#comment-11938 Happens occasionally. In the Prison Litigation Reform Act automatic stay case, <i>Miller</i> v. <i>French</i>, 530 U.S. 327 (2000), the U.S. Solicitor General tried to save the statute by destroying it. That is, they urged the Court to give the statute such a watered down construction as to make almost useless and only then uphold it. The prisoners wanted it struck down, and the state wanted it upheld as written and intended. The state prevailed. This was in the previous administration, BTW. Happens occasionally. In the Prison Litigation Reform Act automatic stay case, Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000), the U.S. Solicitor General tried to save the statute by destroying it. That is, they urged the Court to give the statute such a watered down construction as to make almost useless and only then uphold it. The prisoners wanted it struck down, and the state wanted it upheld as written and intended.

The state prevailed. This was in the previous administration, BTW.

]]> By: David.Huberman http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/09/final-briefs-in-danforth-v-minnesota/#comment-11937 David.Huberman Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:30:30 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/final-briefs-in-danforth-v-minnesota/#comment-11937 The Kansas amicus brief is interesting, as it tries to poke holes in the petitioner's, the respondent's, and the other amici briefs' arguments, and instead, assert absolute states rights in the matter. How common is an amicus brief which asserts a desire for a different conclusion than both parties seek? The Kansas amicus brief is interesting, as it tries to poke holes in the petitioner’s, the respondent’s, and the other amici briefs’ arguments, and instead, assert absolute states rights in the matter.

How common is an amicus brief which asserts a desire for a different conclusion than both parties seek?

]]>