3 ms·
Kudos to Clarence Thomas for being the sole Supreme to dissent from this decision: “There likely is no basis for the objective inquiry into clearly established
by hirundo 6y ago
Kudos to Clarence Thomas for being the sole Supreme to dissent from this decision:
“There likely is no basis for the objective inquiry into clearly established law that our modern cases prescribe... Leading treatises from the second half of the 19th century and case law until the 1980s contain no support for this ‘clearly established law’ test.”
- loeg 6y agoYes, kudos to him for dissenting publically. Is it true that he was the only dissenter, though? Sotomayor has previously expressed dissent to the doctrine. No one wrote a majority opinion for not taking the appeal; I suppose other justices could have signed on to the dissent, but I guess I don't know how often petition refusals get written opinions at all. I get the impression these decision are mostly made behind closed doors.
- nsajko 6y agoAFAIK, Alito and Gorsuch also dissented.
- wahern 6y agoNo, just Thomas. See PDF page 52 at https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061520zor_f2bh.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061520zor_f2... My guess is that many of the justices thought that granting certiorari at a critical moment in the public debate might provide a convenient excuse for Congress to sit on its hands. Sotomayor and Ginsburg have both previously signaled their willingness to reexamine the precedent, yet neither wrote a dissent. If Congress does nothing I'd expect SCOTUS to revisit the issue in the next couple of years.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoYeah, either only clearly established laws apply to everyone or all laws apply to everyone.
- koheripbal 6y agoThere's almost always 1 or 2 that dissent so that someone can write about the opposing opinions for historic and instructive purposes.