Comments on: Today’s Opinion in the Vermont Cases http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-opinion-in-the-vermont-cases/ 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: Marc Shepherd http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-opinion-in-the-vermont-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-9970 Marc Shepherd Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:26:16 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-opinion-in-the-vermont-cases/#comment-9970 Roberts's view on stare decisis seems startlingly similar to the view adopted by the Casey plurality. I don't know on what principled basis he could vote to overrule Casey, given his vote today. (Of course, Justices don't always follow principles, so there's no assurance of this.) As I interpret it, there are now at least five Justices who would not have voted for Buckley had they been on the Court when it was originally decided. Roberts’s view on stare decisis seems startlingly similar to the view adopted by the Casey plurality. I don’t know on what principled basis he could vote to overrule Casey, given his vote today. (Of course, Justices don’t always follow principles, so there’s no assurance of this.)

As I interpret it, there are now at least five Justices who would not have voted for Buckley had they been on the Court when it was originally decided.

]]> By: yokem55 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-opinion-in-the-vermont-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-9969 yokem55 Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:22:58 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-opinion-in-the-vermont-cases/#comment-9969 To me the most interesting thing in the Randall decision is where the justices seem to fall on using <i>stare decis</i>, and thus respect for the Buckley decision.<br /><ul><li>Breyer and Roberts seem to think given the consideration of <i>stare decis</i>, there is not enough justification for overruling Buckley.</li><li>Alito, who in arguing that the respondents did not even discuss the implications of <i>stare decis</i>, presumably thinks that it is important enough to require at least some discussion of the topic.</li><li>Stevens also seems to believe that <i>stare decis</i> is an important topic, but "not an exorable command", and in the current case, the circumstances warrant overruling.</li><li>At the other end of the spectrum, Thomas joined by Stevens, argue that a bad decision is a bad decision and <i>stare decis</i> should have no consideration when looking at a bad decision.</li></ul> Most notable is the split between Roberts and Alito and Thomas and Scalia regarding the topic. It will be interesting to see what other past decions will get <i>stare decis</i> treatment in the future. To me the most interesting thing in the Randall decision is where the justices seem to fall on using stare decis, and thus respect for the Buckley decision.
  • Breyer and Roberts seem to think given the consideration of stare decis, there is not enough justification for overruling Buckley.
  • Alito, who in arguing that the respondents did not even discuss the implications of stare decis, presumably thinks that it is important enough to require at least some discussion of the topic.
  • Stevens also seems to believe that stare decis is an important topic, but “not an exorable command”, and in the current case, the circumstances warrant overruling.
  • At the other end of the spectrum, Thomas joined by Stevens, argue that a bad decision is a bad decision and stare decis should have no consideration when looking at a bad decision.

Most notable is the split between Roberts and Alito and Thomas and Scalia regarding the topic. It will be interesting to see what other past decions will get stare decis treatment in the future.

]]> By: NCLawyer http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-opinion-in-the-vermont-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-9968 NCLawyer Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:54:18 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-opinion-in-the-vermont-cases/#comment-9968 Based on what you've posted, it also has implications for third-party access, both as to recognition by the State and to the ballot. Based on what you’ve posted, it also has implications for third-party access, both as to recognition by the State and to the ballot.

]]>