5 ms·
It was a 7:1 vote. Is there a resource to look up how individual judges voted?
by davrosthedalek 10y ago
It was a 7:1 vote. Is there a resource to look up how individual judges voted?
- ambulancechaser 10y agooyez.org will have the votes. Justice Thomas dissented and Justice Alito concurred in the result but not in the argument. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/581/15-1256/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/581/15-1256/ is the opinion, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1256 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1256 has recorded oral argument, opinions and summaries. Good reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/690jb0/scotus_rules_71_that_acquitted_defendants_are/ https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/690jb0/scotus_rules_71... with a biased title but good discussion.
- iaw 10y agoI'm kind of stupid about the SCOTUS, what does it mean that "Alito concurred in the result but not in the argument?" Edit: Thank you for the explanations, especially the fact that they aren't strict yes-no votes (that makes a ton of sense now).
- ceejayoz 10y ago"I agree with the decision, but I came to my decision via different logic."
- angli 10y agoHe thinks that the majority reached the right conclusion (the result - that the defendants were entitled to the money) but not for the right reason (the particular argument that the majority opinion made)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- droithomme 10y agoIt means he agrees that the money should be returned, but not for the same reasons that the other justices gave. So he'll have his own section in the judgement explaining his own reasoning.
- belovedeagle 10y agoSCOTUS rulings are not yes-no votes. There are any number of opinions written and justices who took part in the case (usually all of them) will sign on to one of these opinions, while sometimes noting that they largely agree with another one. I didn't look up this particular case but usually that sentence means that there were at least two opinions written: one agreed by a plurality, one by Alito, and zero or more additional opinions (at least one if there were any dissents). It means that Alito's opinion amounted to the same yes-no answer(s) as the majority but he was unwilling to say he agreed with their actual written opinion.
- iaw 10y agoThank you for this explanation, that makes a lot of sense. A priori civil forfeiture goes against this countries values but the legal logic in the majority opinion seems like it has some problematic aspects which is why Thomas dissented and Alito agreed but with stipulations.
- belovedeagle 10y agoSCOTUS rulings are somewhat more complicated than yes-no votes. There can be any number of opinions written, and every Justice involved with the case will essentially sign on to one of these opinions (while possibly noting that they largely agree with another opinion and just have more to say).
- dragonwriter 10y agoMost significantly, the precedential value of rulings is in the reasoning rather than the result (now, this is still a clear majority without Alito, but there are cases where there is a majority for the result but no majority for a rationale, which then have little precedential effect, because there is no reasoning you can point to as the "rule" by which the case was decided.)
- emmelaich 10y agoIt was in the pdf linked from the article.