Comments on: Petitions to Watch | Conference of 3.21.08 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Susan Crawford http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/comment-page-1/#comment-15018 Susan Crawford Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:24:17 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/#comment-15018 Just piling on here to ask for the collective wisdom re Fox v. FCC. What's going on? Just piling on here to ask for the collective wisdom re Fox v. FCC. What’s going on?

]]> By: Mark Egerman http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/comment-page-1/#comment-15012 Mark Egerman Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:32:38 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/#comment-15012 Arpaio v. Doe is an interesting case, but Roe v. Crawford out of the 8th circuit seems to be a better case to decide these issues. Importantly, Arpaio ignores the 8th amendment question, which is where the Third, Fifth, and Eighth circuit are truly split (the Turner test is complicated insofar that the policies may be different regarding what kind of court order is necessary). Hopefully the Court will hear arguments on the Eighth Amendment question. Arpaio v. Doe is an interesting case, but Roe v. Crawford out of the 8th circuit seems to be a better case to decide these issues. Importantly, Arpaio ignores the 8th amendment question, which is where the Third, Fifth, and Eighth circuit are truly split (the Turner test is complicated insofar that the policies may be different regarding what kind of court order is necessary). Hopefully the Court will hear arguments on the Eighth Amendment question.

]]> By: Sean O'Brien http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/comment-page-1/#comment-14997 Sean O'Brien Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:57:10 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/#comment-14997 Bruce, the state has the right to keep the person in custody--so I don't think you can put the state in that box. I do agree has to "care" for that person. But what we are talking about here is a purely elective procedure, and not letting someone out of prison to do something they want to do is not really denying a right, but simply what happens when your freedom is taken away due to conviction for a crime. Bruce, the state has the right to keep the person in custody–so I don’t think you can put the state in that box. I do agree has to “care” for that person. But what we are talking about here is a purely elective procedure, and not letting someone out of prison to do something they want to do is not really denying a right, but simply what happens when your freedom is taken away due to conviction for a crime.

]]> By: Danny Evans http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/comment-page-1/#comment-14977 Danny Evans Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:32:04 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/#comment-14977 Does anyone know why FCC v. Fox Television Stations INC,et al is not up for reconsideration. Will it be back up for consideration and does it require 5 votes instead of 4 to be put on the docket for a hearing in the fall? Does anyone know why FCC v. Fox Television Stations INC,et al is not up for reconsideration. Will it be back up for consideration and does it require 5 votes instead of 4 to be put on the docket for a hearing in the fall?

]]> By: Bruce Moldovan http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/comment-page-1/#comment-14976 Bruce Moldovan Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:40:02 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/#comment-14976 Sean, presuming abortions cannot be performed on prison grounds and have to be performed off-site at an abortion clinic (which is not a good presumption but I'll go with it), nobody is forcing the state to keep the individual in its custody. When the state elects to put someone in its custody, it takes on the responsibility of caring for that person. Now there is no fundamental right or liberty interest in an elective nose job, but there is in having an abortion. Reduced rights in prison only go so far as the reduction of those rights serves a valid penological interest. If the state doesn't want to expend the funds to transport an inmate to an abortion clinic, it can release the individual from custody. The constitution doesn't require states keep inmates in prison until officially released or paroled. And as far as I can tell, the prison policy would still refuse transporting the inmate to an abortion clinic even if the inmate offers to pay all expenses. Sean, presuming abortions cannot be performed on prison grounds and have to be performed off-site at an abortion clinic (which is not a good presumption but I’ll go with it), nobody is forcing the state to keep the individual in its custody. When the state elects to put someone in its custody, it takes on the responsibility of caring for that person. Now there is no fundamental right or liberty interest in an elective nose job, but there is in having an abortion. Reduced rights in prison only go so far as the reduction of those rights serves a valid penological interest.

If the state doesn’t want to expend the funds to transport an inmate to an abortion clinic, it can release the individual from custody. The constitution doesn’t require states keep inmates in prison until officially released or paroled. And as far as I can tell, the prison policy would still refuse transporting the inmate to an abortion clinic even if the inmate offers to pay all expenses.

]]> By: Sean O'Brien http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/comment-page-1/#comment-14974 Sean O'Brien Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:08:57 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-32108/#comment-14974 Arpaio v. Doe is interesting. I fail to see how the federal constitution requires the state to expend resources to transport someone to have an elective procedure. Arpaio v. Doe is interesting. I fail to see how the federal constitution requires the state to expend resources to transport someone to have an elective procedure.

]]>