« November 06, 2005 - November 12, 2005 | Main | November 20, 2005 - November 26, 2005 »
Friday, November 18, 2005
An advantage for Moussaoui
11:42 PM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (1)
(This report is part of a continuing series on developments in the terrorism case of Zacarias Moussaoui in the wake of the Supreme Court's refusal on March 21 to hear his pre-trial appeal. Moussaoui has since pleaded guilty, and faces a death penalty proceeding now set to begin Feb. 6 in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, VA.)
A federal judge has given Zacarias Moussaoui, the only individual accused in the U.S. of crimes related to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a partial but significant victory in arrangements for the first phase of his death penalty trial. The judge's order gives defense lawyers a chance to head off a possible death sentence in an abbreviated, preliminary phase of the penalty proceeding, without the jury hearing or seeing the government's emotionally charged evidence about those attacks and the victims. The judge's order can be found here.
In an order that has just become available, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema during a closed-door hearing on Monday granted much of what the defense team asked. She agreed to break the death penalty trial into two phases. The first would be arranged just as Moussaoui's lawyers had asked: it would deal only with a simple question of whether Moussaoui is eligible for a death sentence -- that is, did he take action intended to cause deaths on 9/11, and did his action in fact cause those deaths. If the jury rejects the government's theory of his eligibility at that point, that would rule out the death penalty.
A second phase would be held only if the jury accepts that the government has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Moussaoui did intend to cause the deaths, and his action resulted in deaths. In that second phrase, the jury would weigh aggravating and mitigating factors, another death-eligibility equation. If it finds the aggravating factors outweigh mitigating evidence, the second phase would conclude with the jury deciding, finally, whether death is the sentence Moussaoui should in fact receive.
The government did not object to a two-phase proceeding, but it wanted the first phase to be considerably broader than it now will be. It wanted, during that phase, to bring before the jury evidence to show that Moussaoui committed a crime that was "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved." To do that, it would show videotape and photos of the two hijacked planes flying into the World Trade Center towers, sights and sounds of the collapse of the towers and the deaths that resulted, and pictures of more than 2,800 victims -- "so the jury properly understands," as prosecutors have put it, "who was murdered instead of merely hearing statistics."
In addition, the prosecutors wanted, in that first phase, to play the cockpit voice recorders from Flight 63, the hijaced plane on which the passengers rebelled against the hijackers, resulting in that plane's crash into a farm field in Pennsylvania, killing all aboard.
And prosecutors wanted to offer victim-impact testimony from relatives.
At the first phase now envisioned by the judge, the government is going to try to prove Moussaoui's intent and his role in actually causing deaths by focusing on his "lying to [federal] agents about his knowledge concerning September 11". That is the act, prosecutors will seek to show, that Moussaoui took contemplating that deaths would occur because his lies kept the government from taking action to head off the carnage.
Defense lawyers plan to try to counter that evidence by arguing that government officials had vastly more information about a possible terrorist attack of the kind that occurred than Moussaoui did, and thus could have acted on that information, so that any lies he told to agents could not have been the reason that deaths occurred.
The videotape, photos, victims' photos, and victim impact testimony, Brinkema said in her new order, are "not relevant to the first phase" as she now plans for it to unfold. They could come in at the second phrase, she said, but urged the two sides to "work out stipulations that might avoid the need for this evidence" -- at least a hint that she is concerned about the potential prejudicial effect on jurors in the proceeding.
Broadcast of arguments
10:28 PM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0)
The Supreme Court will release, for immediate broadcast, the audiotape recordings of two oral arguments in major cases in its next sitting. The Court announced on Friday that audiotapes will be available promptly in the cases of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (docket 04-1144)on Wednesday, Nov. 30, and Rumsfeld v. FAIR (04-1152) on Tuesday, Dec. 6. No videotapes will be available.
The Ayotte case tests the standard for judging the constitutionality of abortion restrictions, and the validity of a parental notice law for pregnant teenagers when the law does not provide a health exception. The FAIR case is the Pentagon's appeal on government power to cut off federal funds to law schools that refuse to admit military recruiters to equal participation in campus recruiting sessions because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy against gays serving in the military.
The same-day release of these audiotapes was requested by C-SPAN, the cable network that has successfully sought quick release of prior Supreme Court argument tapes in major cases.
C-SPAN said in a news release Friday that it would broadcast the two tapes shortly after the conclusion of argument. The Ayotte case is scheduled for oral argument from 11 a.m. to noon on Nov. 30, the FAIR case for 10 to 11 a.m. on Dec. 6.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
New Argument Transcripts Available
09:06 AM | Kevin Russell | Comments (5)
Transcript for the oral arguments held on Oct. 31 - Nov. 9, 2005, are now available on the Supreme Court's website. This incudes Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc., Central Va. Community College v. Katz, Maryland v. Blake, Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., and Lockhart v. United States
Blog Round-Up - Thursday, November 17th
08:52 AM | Liz Aloi | Comments (0)
The Harvard Law Review's Supreme Court Issue is now available. Read Judge Posner's forward here.
Fortune Magazine has this article discussing whether or not Judge Alito is really pro-business.
ACSBlog has this post on the Court's decision in Schaffer v. Weast. This case examined which side--parents or school districts--bears the burden of proving the "appropriateness” of the school district's educational program when the two can not agree on the child's education plan at the administrative "due process" hearing that is invoked to decide the issue.
The James Madison Center has made available the briefs in the Wisconsin Right to Life's McCain-Feingold challenge.
On a lighter note:
The Daily Pennsylvanian asks what would happen if Super-agent Drew Rosenhaus started representing Supreme Court nominees.
Yesterday the New York Times ran this article on the disappearance of Article 3 Groupie.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Taking Your "Wins" However You Can Get Them
04:14 PM | Tom Goldstein | Comments (0)
We, along with the Stanford Clinic, are counsel to the respondents in No. 03-1559, Bank of China v. NBM. The question in the case was whether RICO claims based on predicate acts of mail or wire fraud require proof of reliance. After the petitioner filed its opening brief, it brought in Seth Waxman of Wilmer Hale. We filed our opening brief, and were supported by the Solicitor General, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Washington Legal Foundation.
Today, the Bank dismissed the case. We agreed to the request, having nothing to gain from review of the Second Circuit's decision in our clients' favor. The Bank had won a retrial in the case under the standard imposed by the Second Circuit, securing a judgment that (if it isn't reversed) would give it most of what it wants in the case. Oddly, we had moved for a stay of the retrial, warning that it would effectively moot the S. Ct. case if the Bank won on remand, and the district court, court of appeals, and Justice Ginsburg all denied a stay.
Now the case has gone away. The dismissal means that the oral argument, scheduled for January 9, will now be canceled.
Graham/Levin amendment adopted
04:07 PM | Marty Lederman | Comments (8)
Update: The Senate at midday Tuesday approved the revised Graham amendment, now known as the Graham/Levin amendment, to restrict court review of the U.S. military's dealings with detainees. The vote was 84-14, with one senator from each party not voting. That proposal passed after the Senate had rejected, by a 54-44 vote, a less-restrictive version offered by Sen. Jeff Bingaman. The amended version was attached to the National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1042. That bill was passed, 98-0, and sent to the House. Here is the roll call on the Graham/Levin amendment. All of the No votes but one (that of Sen. Specter) were cast by Democrats.
Here is the draft amendment-to-the-amendment that Lyle references in his story below. Apparently the Senate is on the verge of voting on it, if it has not done so already. (More on this amendment from Katherine over at Obsidian Wings.)
I have not had time to review it carefully, let alone to consult with folks who know much more about these matters than I do. But my initial impression is that this bill, if amended, would still cut off numerous sorts of challenges to the Administration's detention policies and practices and GTMO, and would raise innumerable ambiguities and unanswered questions. (Major caveat: The examples that follow are the result of an extremely preliminary and superficial review of the amendment. Therefore, they are subject to change, and I welcome comments from those closer to the scene, and from those with more expertise on these issues.)
For example:
-- The bill would appear to eliminate review -- on habeas, anyway -- for detainees found not to be "enemy combatants" by the Combatant Status Review Tribunals but who nevertheless remain in detention, and detainees who have not been evaluated by such tribunals but who are being held indefinitely.
-- The bill would appear to cut off habeas petitions for GTMO detainees contesting the conditions of their confinement (e.g., that they have been tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment).
-- The bill appears to be limited to detainees at Guanatanamo, which ironically enough might give detainees elsewhere around the world greater habeas rights than GTMO detainees would have.
-- By eliminating all habeas peititons for GTMO detainees, would the bill end the Rasul/Al Odah and Hamdan cases? The final paragraph appears to be intended to preserve such cases, but it is very oblique.
-- If those cases are preserved, do they need to be re-filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, under the new procedures -- and then only after a conviction?
-- What would "exclusive jurisdiction" of the D.C. Circuit mean? Would there be any appeal from that court's decisions?
-- Would the statute establish congressional approval/ratification of the President's military commissions -- in some or all their particulars?
-- A military commission conviction could be challenged on grounds that subjecting the alien to the President's military commision Order was not "consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." What about treaties? Customary laws of armed conflict? Are those included in "laws"? Would this very statute change the "law" of the United States with respect to the President's statutory authority to convene the commissions?
-- Will all the CSRT and Commission proceedings be governed by the new, Graham-proposed definition of "unlawful enemy combatant," which I believe was added to the DoD appropriations bill last month in the Senate? (This is a very important question that hasn't received enough attention yet.)
I'm sure this list could be multiplied many times over.(Update: The first scheduled trial before a military commission was postponed on Monday. See post below. The fate of that case, involving Australian David M. Hicks, may depend on the outcome of congressional consideration of the judicial review issues.)
[Note: Commentary ahead.] My first impression is that this is a blunderbuss solution that cries out for careful and deliberate consideration and debate by congressional committees, where experts can weigh in and various questions can be examined and answered. Alas, that doesn't appear to be a realistic option any longer.
RICO case dismissed
03:44 PM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0)
The Supreme Court's clerk on Tuesday dismissed, by agreement of the parties, the case of Bank of China, New York Branch v. NBM LLC (docket 03-1559). The case was dismissed under the Court's Rule 46.1, providing for dismissal at any stage of the proceedings when the parties agreed in writing. The dismissal is usually done without reference of the issue to the Court.
This case, scheduled for argument on Monday, Jan. 9, raised the issue whether those who file civil RICO claims based on allegations of mail or wire fraud as underlying acts must show a reliance upon fraudulent statements, or whether it was suffiicent to prove knowledge of the fraud. The issue is said to arise frequently in civil RICO cases. Lower courts have reached conflicting decisions on the reliance issue. The dismissal of the case leaves the issue as is.
Rule 46.1 is usually invoked when a case has been settled. There was no indication in the clerk's order on Tuesday what led to the agreement to have this case dismissed.
The dismissal means that only nine cases are scheduled for argument in the January sitting.
(Disclosure: The firm of Goldstein & Howe was in the case on behalf of respondents. The author of this post is independent of the law practice, and learned of the dismissal from the Court.)
First military trial blocked
11:15 AM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0)
Amid the maneuvering in the Senate over judicial review of detainees held by the U.S. military (see Marty Lederman's report above for the latest), a federal judge in Washington has barred the Pentagon from going ahead with the first planned war crimes trial before a military commission. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly stayed the trial of Australian David M. Hicks until after the Supreme Court has decided the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a constitutional and international law challenge to the commission procedures. (The case in U.S. District Court is Hicks v. Bush, docket 02-299.)
The case against Hicks was to begin on Friday of this week, with a hearing on pre-trial motions. But Kollar-Kotelly's order, issued Monday, blocked military officials "from going forward with any and all legal proceedings" against Hicks, based on the Supreme Court's Nov. 7 grant of review in the Hamdan case (Supreme Court docket 05-184).
Hicks has been charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy, with trial to be before a military commission, presumably at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he has been detained for nearly four years. He was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 and turned over to U.S. military authorities.
"An injunction in this case is necessary in order for this Court to maintain its jurisdiction over petitioner's claim that a military commission lacks jurisdiction to try him, a claim which petitioner is entitled to have adjudicated by this Court prior to trial before a military commission," Kollar-Kotelly said in a 15-page opinion in support of her stay order. "Petitioner faces the clear and imminent risk of being subjected to a military commission which has not been ultimately determined by the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over petitioner."
She found that the government would not suffer any significant harm by the delay. "Minor logistical reshuffling" is the only likely effect on military prosecutors, she said.
Rejecting a government argument that staying Hicks' trial would mean the courts were intruding into the Executive branch's area, the judge said the Supreme Court should be the tribunal to decide such a key separation-of-powers issue.
The judge conceded that the D.C. Circuit's ruling in July upholding military commissions would suggest that Hicks probably would not win his challenge on the merits. But she said other factors justified a stay. She commented: "Hamdan is a unique, highly contentious case involving unprecedented and high-profile claims regarding the propriety of military commission jurisdiction...The Supreme Court has already granted certiorari in the case for immediate briefing and oral argument this term." Thus, she said, a "full and complete resolution" of the challenge is "on the immediate horizon" from "the highest court in the land."
As part of her order, Kollar-Kotelly said no proceedings on any other issues would go forward in her Court while the stay was in effect.
Blog Round-Up - Tuesday, November 15th
11:09 AM | Liz Aloi | Comments (0)
In nomination news:
Documents released this week revealed that Supreme Court nominee Judge Alito wrote in 1985 that he personally believed the Constitution did not protect a woman's right to an abortion. Think Progress comments here. Professor Bainbridge comments here, with a post titled, "Alito on Abortion: Vindication for the Anti-Miers Crowd."
Election Law Blog asks if Judge Alito is an opponent of one person/on vote.
Posted on How Appealing Extra, here is a Daily Journal Article on the way in which Alito could shape the way the Justices approach sentencing reform.
In non-nomination news:
Here is an announcement, courtesy of PrawfsBlawg on a forum on Kelo and the future of property rights at the FSU Law School. PrawfsBlawg also has this post on the Court's denial of cert in Johnson v. Bush, the felony disfranchisement case.
Concurring Opinions has this post on "Article III Groupie, disrobed."
This week, the Legal Affairs Debate Club asks, "What are the limits of Presidential Power?" John C. Yoo, Professor of Law at Boalt Hall, University of California, Berkeley and Neil J. Kinkopf, Associate Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law are debating the issue.
Moussaoui trial delayed
11:01 AM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0)
The death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only individual accused in the U.S. of crimes related to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has been delayed for a month, under a federal judge's new order late Monday.
Instead of beginning next Jan. 9, the trial will begin with jury selection procedures on Feb. 6. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in Alexandria, Va., said both sides had asked for the delay due to "the complex nature of the evidence, much of which is classified." In addition, she indicated, there is the difficult issue of crafting "substitutions" for the testimony of Al Qaeda operatives, who will not be personally on the stand as defense witnesses.
Under the new schedule, jurors are to appear on Feb. 6, and, assuming that it takes a month to select a jury pool, the trial would begin on March 6 with final selection of 18 jurors, followed by opening statements. Some 500 potential jurors will be summoned in order to try to pick a jury pool of 85, according to the order.
If the proceeding results in a death sentence for Moussaoui, an appeal to the Fourth Circuit and ultimately to the Supreme Court is expected. The Supreme Court refused on March 21 to hear an initial appeal by Moussaoui. He has since pleaded guilty to terrorism conspiracy charges.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Fate of Hamdan case unclear
11:03 PM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0)
News stories out of the Senate Monday night indicated that a new version had been drafted of the proposal to limit access to U.S. courts for foreign nationals detained by the U.S. military during the war on terror.
A vote on the new measure, called a compromise by its draftsmen, was scheduled for Tuesday, according to the stories. Because the text of this version was not available Monday night, it was unclear whether it would block the Supreme Court's planned review of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (05-184), testing the constitutionality of the war crimes tribunals that are to operate at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
According to press accounts, federal courts would retain jurisdiction over detainees' pending cases. But how far that jurisdiction would reach was unclear, since imprecision in the news stories left it uncertain whether the writ of habeas corpus was to be denied to detainees.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, was said to be involved in drafting the supposed compromise. Last week, he persuaded the Senate to strip the detainees, in pending cases and in future cases, of any right to challenge their detention, military tribunals, or designation as "enemy combatants." But Graham was quoted Monday night as saying that the new proposal, crafted by him and Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, would allow the courts to determine the constitutionality of the war-crimes tribunals and the "combat status review tribunals" that decide whether to keep a detainee in military confinement.
The news accounts did agree on these specifics: that detainees tried and convicted of war crimes would have an automatic right to appeal to the D.C. Circuit if they had been sentenced to ten years in prison or more, or to a death sentence. If their punishment was less than ten years, the D.C. Circuit would have discretion not to hear the appeal.
A separate vote is expected on Tuesday, the news reports said, on a proposal by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Democrat, to modify the earlier Graham amendment seeking to deny habeas challenges. Bingaman's alternative was said to have been modified to limit habeas cases to the D.C. Circuit. An additional change in his proposal would be to bar claims challenging living conditions at Guantanamo.
The text of his latest proposal also was not available Monday night.
Court rules against parents, denies felons' vote
10:02 AM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (12)
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that parents, not school officials, have the burden of proving a parents' claim that an educational plan for their disabled child does not satisfy their child's needs. The 6-2 ruling came in the case of Schaffer v. Weast, involving the burden of proof in disputed cases of student placement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Federal courts have been split three ways on the issue.
The parents, however, would not have the burden of proof, the school would, if school officials seek relief in an administrative hearing, the opinion stressed.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority: "The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an Individual Educational Plan is properly placed on the party seeking relief, whether that is the disabled child or the school district." In the Weast case, the Fourth Circuit had ruled the same way, reversing a District Court ruling putting the burden on the school district. The parents' appeal to the Supreme Court argued unsuccessfully that school officials must always justify the appropriateness of a disabled child's school plan.(Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., took no part in Monday's decision. Dissents were filed by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.)
The Court agreed to hear two cases on issues involving prison life. (Here is the Order List.) It agreed to clarify what steps prison inmates must take before they may file a federal court lawsuit challenging prison conditions. The issue involves the scope of the duty under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to use administrative remedies before suing (Woodford v. Ngo, 05-416). The Circuit Courts are in disagreement about the issue. In the Ngo case, the specific issue is whether the exhaustion requirement is satisfied if the inmate files an administrative complaint too late, after a filing deadline has passed, or is otherwise flawed procedurally.
And the Court granted review of whether prison officials have a duty to allow dangerous inmates access to newspapers, magazines and photos (Beard v. Banks, 04-1739).
The Court also dismissed, without deciding, the case of Maryland v. Blake (04-373), seeking to clarify when police officials violate an individual's Miranda rights by making comments to the individual after he sought a lawyer. The brief order said the case had been "improvidently granted" -- an indication that, after briefing and argument, the Court found the issues in no need of resolution.
In the most significant order denying review on Monday, the Court declined to rule on the validity of state laws that ban all convicted felons from voting, even after they have served their sentences. This marked the third time in the past year that the Court has passed up the issue of felons' voting rights, under the Voting Rights Act or the Fourteenth Amendment. The denied case was Johnson v. Bush (05-212).
The Court's denial leaves intact a ruling by the Eleventh Circuit that the Voting Rights Act's Section 2 does not apply to states' felon disenfranchisement laws. If Section 2 did apply to such laws, that Court said, it would raise constitutional problems, because the Fourteenth Amendment itself gives states the authority to deny the vote to convicted criminals. The Circuit Court also ruled that Florida's ban is not racially discriminatory under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In another denial, the Court refused to hear a constitutional challenge to a display of the motto, "In God We Trust," on the exterior facade of a government building. Two lawyers in Davidson County, N.C., had asked the Court to order the Fourth Circuit to reconsider a ruling upholding the display's legality, and to take into account the Court's ruling last term against a government display of the Ten Commandments. The Court instead simply denied review, without explanation. The controversy over "In God We Trust" in government settings, however, continues apace in lower court cases.
The Court invited the U.S. Solicitor General to offer the government's views on whether federal law regulating energy-using products preempts the field and thus bars states from enforcing their own regulations for household appliances. The Ninth Circuit ruled that federal law does not preempt California regulations. The case is Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute v. Energy Resources and Development Commission, 05-331.
Blog Round-Up - Monday, November 14th
08:38 AM | Liz Aloi | Comments (2)
The identity of Article III Groupie of Underneath Their Robes is revealed!
Concurring Opinions has this updated post on statistics related to professors who blog.
Law.com has posted this article on Hope v. Pelzer. In 2002 the Supreme Court, by 6-3 majority, cleared the way for Hope, an Alabama inmate, to sue guards who left him handcuffed to a hitching post for seven hours. However, on Nov. 8, Judge Karon O. Bowdre of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted the state's motion to dismiss the suit after Hope's lawyer finished presenting Hope's case to a jury.
The Washington Post's blog on the Court has posted this speech by Karl Rove to the Federalist Society last week in which he describes our courts in crisis.
Crime & Federalism has this post on why the Court should grant cert in United States of America v. Jose Antonio Perez. The petition asks the Supreme Court to reconsider whether the certainty of an eyewitness identification ought to be a factor a court considers when determining whether a suggestive identification is nonetheless sufficiently reliable to satisfy the requirements of due process.
PrawfsBlawg has this post responding to yesterday's article in the New York Times describing Yale Law School's reaction to the Alito nomination.
The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal now has posted this op-ed by Eugene Volokh on Alito's libertarian outlook on the First Amendment.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
More Action on Long-Pending Petitions
01:32 PM | Tom Goldstein | Comments (1)
I previously posted on some petitions that had been pending for a long time and their likely disposition.
Two cases -- 05-37/-45, San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, and 05-101, Bradshaw v. Richey -- are still pending and still seem headed for summary reversal.
Dissents from the denial of cert. (or eventual grants seem likely) in 05-130, eBay v. MercExchange, on patent injunctions and 04-1739, Beard v. Banks (noted by Lyle here) on prison officials’ authority to deny inmates who are considered dangerous any access to newspapers, magazines and photos.
A summary affirmance -- accompanied by one or more opinions (including a dissent) -- seems likely in the Texas redistricting cases.
Blog Round-Up - Sunday, November 13th
12:23 PM | Liz Aloi | Comments (0)
The New York Times has this article discussing Law Students Against Alito and the dissatisfaction members of the Yale Law community are feeling with the Alito nomination. Concurring Opinions discusses the article here, asking if Yale Law School owes anything to Alito.
Blue Mass Group has this post on Judge Alito's 1990 Senate questionnaire. An emerging issue in the Alito Supreme Court nomination has been his participation in cases involving parties such as Vanguard (in which he had invested a substantial amount of money) and his sister's law firm.
Here is more coverage of Alito's criminal law record courtesy of Sentencing Law & Policy.
Balkinization has this post on balancing the Court. Balkin argues that while Presidents are not required to preserve ideological balance on the Supreme Court, other people have a right to oppose the President if they believe that the new nominee will shift the Court in directions that they believe are bad for the country and inconsistent with the best interpretation of the Constitution.
The Legal Theory Blog's Download of the Week is Mark Graber of the University of Maryland's The Jacksonian Makings of the Taney Court.