« August 21, 2005 - August 27, 2005 | Main | September 04, 2005 - September 10, 2005 »
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Chief Justice Rehnquist dies
11:30 PM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, whose health had declined rapidly over the past few days, died Saturday evening at his home in Arlington, Va. He died just 28 days short of his 81st birthday.
Kathleen L. Arberg, the Supreme Court's public information officer, released the following statement late Saturday night:
"William H. Rehnquist, the 16th Chief Justice of the United States, died this evening at his home in Arlington, Va., surrounded by his three children. The Chief Justice battled thyroid cancer since being diagnosed last October, and continued to perform his duties on the Court until a precipitous decline in his health in the last couple of days.
"He is survived by his three children, Janet Rehnquist of Arlington, Va., James C. Rehnquist of Sharon, Mass., and Nancy Spears of Middleburg, Vt.; his sister, Jean Laurin of Grand Rapids, Mich., and nine grandchildren. His wife, Natalie Cornell Rehnquist, died in 1991.
"Chief Justice Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice in 1971 by President Nixon and took his seat January 7, 1972. He was elevated to Chief Justice by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.
"Plans regarding funeral arrangements will be forthcoming."
Ms. Arberg said she had no information on additional details surrounding the recent decline in his health.
The Chief Justice Has Died
11:12 PM | Tom Goldstein | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)
Both CNN and the New York Times are reporting the death of the Chief Justice. It is a very sad day. We will obviously have more to say in the morning and over the coming days.
Recent Filings
04:54 PM | Tom Goldstein | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
On Thursday, we filed two merits briefs in cases being handled by the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.
In Whitman v. U.S. D.O.T., we filed the petitioner's brief. Pam Karlan is principally responsible for the case and will argue it in December. Whitman involves the right of federal employees to bring employment-related claims in federal courts.
In Georgia v. Randolph, we filed the respondent's brief. Randolph presents the question whether the police can conduct a search when one occupant of a residence consents to a search and another objects.
Also, we recently filed this cert. petition presenting a question about the scope of Brady v. Maryland.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Next abortion case on the way
08:18 PM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The deeply controversial issue of the power of government to impose a flat ban on an abortion procedure has moved several procedural steps closer to the Supreme Court -- in cases from Nebraska and Virginia. Both cases test the constitutionality of laws making it a crime to perform a procedure that abortion opponents call "partial-birth abortion." Both statutes were enacted in 2003.
The Nebraska case appears to be moving toward the Court somewhat more rapidly. The Eighth Circuit struck down a federal law imposing a ban on the procedure on July 8. The Justice Department did not seek rehearing en banc, and the mandate was issued on Thursday. Under Supreme Court rules, the government will have until Oct. 6 -- in the first week of the new Term -- to ask the Justices to hear the case. (The 90-day filing period for seeking Supreme Court review runs from the date of the ruling, on July 8, not from the date of issuance of the mandate. The mandate was issued after the time had expired for a petition for rehearing en banc.) In the Eighth Circuit, the case was Carhart, et al., v. Gonzales, et al., Circuit docket 04-3379. There is little or no doubt that the Justice Department will appeal to the Court; it has mounted a vigorous defense of the federal ban since its enactment.
In the Virginia case, the Fourth Circuit in a 2-1 decision on June 8 found a similar state ban invalid. On Friday, the Circuit, by a vote of 9-3, refused to rehear the case en banc as requested by state officials. Virginia Attorney General Judith Williams Jagdmann said in a statement that the state was reviewing its options, but it seems likely to appeal to the Supreme Court, since her office had told the Circuit Court in seeking en banc review that the case raised "questions of exceptional importance." The 90-day period for seeking Supreme Court review in the case of Richmond Medical Center for Women, et al., v. Hicks, et al. (Circuit docket 03-1821) will run until Dec. 1.
It is unclear what impact there will be on either case from the Court's review of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England v. Ayotte (docket 04-1144). While that case involves a parental notice abortion law, it raises issues closely similar to those in the partial-birth abortion cases -- the need for a health exception to any limit on abortion procedures, and the standard of review for abortion legislation. The Court is to hear oral argument in the Ayotte case on Nov. 30. It is possible, of course, that the Court may hold any appeal in a partial-birth abortion case until after it has decided Ayotte.
(Thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing blog for a tip on the Fourth Circuit's denial of en banc review.)
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Event Today
08:33 AM | Liz Aloi | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
This morning at 11:00, in room 538 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Schumer will give a policy address on "The Myth of the Ginsburg Precedent."
According to the American Constitution Society, which is hosting the event:
Senator Charles Schumer will explain that the so-called "Ginsburg Precedent" does not accurately reflect Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation hearing, during which she answered many questions, as have most other Supreme Court nominees."The Ginsburg Precedent" refers to a report published by the conservative group, Progress for America, that details the history of judicial confirmation hearings and posits that judicial nominees often decline to discuss specific cases when they are sitting before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Daily Kos discusses the "Ginsburg Precedent" here. Progress for America has video excerpts from Justice Ginsburg's confirmation hearings here. Here is the Federalist Society's white paper on the issue.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
The Slow Pace of Blogging
12:34 PM | Tom Goldstein | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Sorry that we haven't had anything up on the blog lately. We have three merits briefs due at the Court within a week (two tomorrow).
Next week, I'll be doing the color commentary (for lack of a better term) for the NPR coverage of the hearings and will be live blogging them on the Nomination Blog.