6 ms·

Fascinating mix of justices on this one: > The vote was 5 to 4. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Clarence Thoma

by nlh 8y ago

Fascinating mix of justices on this one: > The vote was 5 to 4. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch. I can't imagine we're gonna see RBG agreeing with the Alito/Gorsuch/Thomas clan too often.

anoncoward111 8y ago
If there's one thing that career DC-ites can agree on, it's that citizens and (most) corporations need to pay their pound of flesh to the government.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Retric 8y ago
So how exactly is this a constitutional question where a new court can have a different opinion? Quill now harms states to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier. That hardly seems like it changes the Constitution.
- gascan 8y ago
  The Constitution uses a fair amount of fuzzy language. "Undue burden", "excessive bail", "cruel & unusual punishment", "unreasonable search & seizure", etc. Thus our perception of what is undue, excessive, cruel, or unreasonable can change, without the Constitution changing a word.
  - Retric 8y ago
    That's relevant to specific sections not the entire thing. I really don't see any applicable fuzzy language involved. As far as I can see it's purely a political question and they simply chose ahead of time to change their minds independent of any arguments given. That's a huge perversion of the entire idea of the supreme court.
- brlewis 8y ago
  They aren't saying that the Constitution has changed since Quill, but that Quill was wrong to begin with. See pages 2-4 of the ruling, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
acheron 8y ago
I can't imagine we're gonna see RBG agreeing with the Alito/Gorsuch/Thomas clan too often. To some extent, sure, but that's also exaggerated. The one or two "ideological" decisions with stereotypical lineups get all the attention, because general readers can pick a team and root for it, just like sports and election politics, so it makes for lots of clicks and ad eyeballs. In reality, differing lineups happen frequently, because the justices have their own unique perspectives on most cases and areas of law, and over the past several years unanimous and 8-1 decisions are up compared to the past.
supertrope 8y ago
The media focuses on the most controversial cases. There's less headlines for court orders signed by all nine. Between even two of the most ideologically/philosophically different justices, they concur 67% of the time.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gascan 8y ago
I love these crossover rulings. They give me just the faintest confidence that the judiciary actually works, and isn't simply filled with a bunch of partisan hacks.
kruipen 8y ago
All nine Justices agreed on the merit, including Justice Thomas who was in majority on Quill which he now voted to overturn. The decedent argued that the precedent, while wrongly decided, should be upheld on stare decisis grounds, and it should be left to Congress to correct the mistake.

by nlh 8y ago

anoncoward111 8y ago

If there's one thing that career DC-ites can agree on, it's that citizens and (most) corporations need to pay their pound of flesh to the government.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Retric 8y ago

So how exactly is this a constitutional question where a new court can have a different opinion? Quill now harms states to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier. That hardly seems like it changes the Constitution.

gascan 8y ago
The Constitution uses a fair amount of fuzzy language. "Undue burden", "excessive bail", "cruel & unusual punishment", "unreasonable search & seizure", etc. Thus our perception of what is undue, excessive, cruel, or unreasonable can change, without the Constitution changing a word.
- Retric 8y ago
  That's relevant to specific sections not the entire thing. I really don't see any applicable fuzzy language involved. As far as I can see it's purely a political question and they simply chose ahead of time to change their minds independent of any arguments given. That's a huge perversion of the entire idea of the supreme court.
brlewis 8y ago
They aren't saying that the Constitution has changed since Quill, but that Quill was wrong to begin with. See pages 2-4 of the ruling, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf

acheron 8y ago

I can't imagine we're gonna see RBG agreeing with the Alito/Gorsuch/Thomas clan too often. To some extent, sure, but that's also exaggerated. The one or two "ideological" decisions with stereotypical lineups get all the attention, because general readers can pick a team and root for it, just like sports and election politics, so it makes for lots of clicks and ad eyeballs. In reality, differing lineups happen frequently, because the justices have their own unique perspectives on most cases and areas of law, and over the past several years unanimous and 8-1 decisions are up compared to the past.

supertrope 8y ago

The media focuses on the most controversial cases. There's less headlines for court orders signed by all nine. Between even two of the most ideologically/philosophically different justices, they concur 67% of the time.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gascan 8y ago

I love these crossover rulings. They give me just the faintest confidence that the judiciary actually works, and isn't simply filled with a bunch of partisan hacks.

kruipen 8y ago

All nine Justices agreed on the merit, including Justice Thomas who was in majority on Quill which he now voted to overturn. The decedent argued that the precedent, while wrongly decided, should be upheld on stare decisis grounds, and it should be left to Congress to correct the mistake.