Orders

Monday, March 27th, 2006 10:32 am | Tom Goldstein | Print This Post

Here is today’s orders list and here is an interesting opinion concurring in the denial of cert. filed by Justice Scalia and joined by Justice Alito.



5 Comments »



  1. Apparently Scalia thinks it’s all right for a Supreme Court Justice to respond to his critics by flipping the bird in church.

    I doubt we’ll be hearing many cries of dismay, expressions of shock, or calls for impeachment from Conservative critics, though. After all, breaches of judicial decorum can only come from uppity women justices.

    Comment by M.A. — March 27, 2006 @ 1:01 pm

  2. I would want to see the picture before criticizing. One article refers to a “gesture under the chin” with Justice Scalia adding “that’s Sicilian.” There is a “Sicilian” hand gesture of a hand under the chin, and moved out, indicating “buzz off.” Let’s see if that’s what really happened.

    See “You’re quiet for a moment, and then she makes a gesture flicking her fingers under her chin that Italians use to say, economically, forget him, he wasn’t worth it, life goes on and you’ll be better off” from “An Italian Affair,” by Laura Fraser (for example)

    Comment by tabman — March 27, 2006 @ 2:26 pm

  3. I don’t hold with judges making obscene gestures or public — or anybody else doing so, for that matter. I am also dismayed at a concurring opinion on a denial of cert. order. How common is that? I can’t recall any.

    Comment by rodgerlodger — March 27, 2006 @ 3:15 pm

  4. An opinion concurring in the denial of certiorari is nothing to be “dismayed at”. I recall Justice Stevens issuing just such an opinion on more than one occasion.

    Comment by CDebateAdmin — March 27, 2006 @ 3:40 pm

  5. So what if Scalia gave someone the bird. Admittedly, it’s sub-optimal, but is it anywhere near as bad as linking death threats with legitimate political criticism of the judiciary?

    As for Scalia’s concurring opinion on the denial of cert., I think Ginsburg did this once (if memory serves, it was an affirmative action case). I think it’s great. It gives a glimpse as to what the Court was thinking.

    It would be nice to see more of this. The liberal wing of the Court somewhat routinely votes to stay executions, and we almost never hear their rationale. (Breyer being an exception, but only to give voice to his pet theory about the constitutionality of long death row stays.)

    Comment by federalist — March 27, 2006 @ 4:02 pm

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.