<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Today&#8217;s Orders</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-orders-9/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-orders-9/</link>
	<description>The Supreme Court of the United States blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Roger Friedman</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-orders-9/comment-page-1/#comment-13061</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger Friedman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:57:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-9/#comment-13061</guid>
		<description>I was glad to see that both halves of the scotusblog team, as well as the Stanford Clinic, were associated with civil rights veteran Ed Still on the Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in Riley.  To the extent that any of you can reply without giving up the benefits of using a Supreme Court specialist, I have two questions.  (1) In light of Lyle&#039;s comment, does the postponement of jurisdiction likely rule out a summary dismissal on that ground after the merits briefing?  (2) Does the failure to affirm likely rule out a summary affirmance after the merits briefing, or does it indicate a desire by the &quot;federalist&quot; wing of the court to overturn either the mechanics or the constitutional foundations of the Voting Rights Act?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was glad to see that both halves of the scotusblog team, as well as the Stanford Clinic, were associated with civil rights veteran Ed Still on the Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in Riley.  To the extent that any of you can reply without giving up the benefits of using a Supreme Court specialist, I have two questions.  (1) In light of Lyle&#8217;s comment, does the postponement of jurisdiction likely rule out a summary dismissal on that ground after the merits briefing?  (2) Does the failure to affirm likely rule out a summary affirmance after the merits briefing, or does it indicate a desire by the &#8220;federalist&#8221; wing of the court to overturn either the mechanics or the constitutional foundations of the Voting Rights Act?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan Evans</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-orders-9/comment-page-1/#comment-13027</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan Evans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:21:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-orders-9/#comment-13027</guid>
		<description>Forgive my crude intrusion onto this hallowed legal site, but could someone tell me how to find out what happened today with Ryan D. Evans v United States?  

Your assistance is appreciated.  A certain outsider wants to know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Forgive my crude intrusion onto this hallowed legal site, but could someone tell me how to find out what happened today with Ryan D. Evans v United States?  </p>
<p>Your assistance is appreciated.  A certain outsider wants to know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.450 seconds -->
