Comments on: Decisions: No ruling on Hamdan; partisan gerrymander claim rejected

By: DaSarge

DaSarge — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:51:28 +0000

“In this context, “JJ” is the plural of “J” and thus denotes “Justices.” Don’t ask us why.”

Just as “pp.” is the plural of “p.” for “page” and “ll.” means “lines.” Very traditional in the law biz.

H&R: Thanks!

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:29:45 +0000

“In a 5-3 ruling, the Court decided that prison officials may deny newspapers, magazines and photographs to their most dangerous inmates.”

I have that as 6-2. The following from the linked slip opinion at p.4:

BREYER, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY and SOUTER, JJ., joined.

THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

By: Ramki

Ramki — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:43:45 +0000

This might be a bit off-the-point… but why is Justice Ginsburg being labelled “JJ”? My understanding was that “JJ” was used for the junior-most Justice, which would be Alito. No?

H&R responds: In this context, “JJ” is the plural of “J” and thus denotes “Justices.” Don’t ask us why.

By: Kent Scheidegger

Kent Scheidegger — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:15:56 +0000

The Court decided Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon on the merits. Suppression of post-arrest statements is not required. The procedural default ruling that Lyle refers to is in the companion case of Bustillo v. Johnson.

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:48:55 +0000

“In a 5-3 ruling, the Court decided that prison officials may deny newspapers, magazines and photographs to their most dangerous inmates.”

I have that as 6-2:

“BREYER, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY and SOUTER, JJ., joined.

THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.”

By: yokem55

yokem55 — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:41:38 +0000

Widely splintered? Looks more like a very tangled weave of decisions with varying levels of concurance and dissent. The only justices that looked like they wrote completely on their own were Thomas and Scalia:

“KENNEDY, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts II–A and III, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, AND BREYER, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts I and IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B and II–C, and an opinion withrespect to Part II–D, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER, J., joined as to Parts I and II. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which ALITO, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined as to Part III.”

By: Jay Cox

Jay Cox — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:38:31 +0000

I believe that Beard v. Banks was 6-2 (with only Justices Stevens and Ginsburg dissenting), not 5-3.