Showing 1–50 of 89 items published in October 2005, most recent first.
CNN is reporting that Judge Samuel Alito will be announced as President Bush’s pick to replace Justice O’Connor. Other news organizations have the same report. Television networks have been alerted to the planned announcement by the President at 8 a.m.
Moving to rebuild his conservative political coalition and hoping to shift the Supreme Court toward the Right, President Bush on Monday selected Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., as his nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
The Supreme Court again Monday took no action on the case testing the constitutionality of the military tribunals set up to try terrorism suspects on war crimes charges — Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (05-184).
“I want my lawyer!” If there is one piece of wisdom every law student knows, it’s that these should be the first words out of your mouth if you’re ever in trouble with the law. Once you say that, the conversation with the police is over until your lawyer is present. No ifs, ands, or buts. Right?
The Supreme Court is showing some interest in a case that tests the scope of First Amendment protection for college and university newspaper editors and reporters. On Oct. 27, the Court asked for a response to the appeal in Hosty, et al., v. Carter (docket 05-377).
Blog Coverage of the Alito Nomination: ACSblog has this post on his life as a litigator. Think Progress offers this perspective with Alito’s views on women’s right, civil rights and other issues. Election Law Blog has this post on why Judge Alito will not be confirmed.
Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc., No. 04-905, will be the first case argued on Monday. This case involves two questions about the application of the Robinson-Patman Act: 1.
Several news organizations were saying Saturday night that President Bush is expected to announce a new nominee to the Supreme Court either on Sunday or Monday, and that the President has narrowed the choice to two federal circuit judges: Samuel A. Alito, Jr., 55, of the Third Circuit in Philadelphia and J. Michael Luttig, 51, of the Fourth Circuit in Richmond.
The Solicitor General has filed the Government’s reply briefs in: No. 04-1084, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal (to be argued this Tuesday); No. 04-1152, Rumsfeld v. FAIR; and No. 04-1203, United States v. Georgia Most of the briefs in these three cases, as well as in No. 04-623, Gonzales v. Oregon, and No. 04-1144, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, are collected here.
On Monday, the Court will hear its second case in two years concerning whether the federal government may abrogate state sovereign immunity using its Article I bankruptcy powers.
The Court has posted the Hearing List with the arguing counsel for the November sitting.
Tom’s Jan-Greenburg-prompted prediction that the President will nominate Judge Alito comes on something of a hot streak: Way back in November, he predicted that John Roberts would be the most likely nominee to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist; and immediately after her nomination, he went out on a limb that few others did at the time, and predicted Harriet Miers would not be confirmed.
No, its not for the nomination announcement, but the court website now has this media advisory posted for oral arguments in Scheidler v. NOW (04-1244) and Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (04-1144).
The Calendar on the right side-bar is now up and running again.
On Judge Alito as a potential court nominee: Here is the Volokh Conspiracy. Here is Underneath Their Robes. Here is Sentencing Law & Policy. On other potential nominees: Here is Prawfsblawg asking whether Judge McConnell can “hate” Bush v. Gore.
Jan Crawford Greenburg – who I think has always been ahead of the pack in on the nominations issue – reports that the White House is focused on Judges Luttig and Alito, and potentially Judges Owen and Williams. Of these candidates Judge Alito seems most likely to me, and he is my prediction.
Scott McClellan has apparently told the White House press corps that there will be no announcement today regarding judicial nominees. Wonkette has the full pool report.
On Miers: On ThinkProgress John Podesta has this post on whether or not the “right” holds female Supreme Court nominees to a different standard than male nominees. PrawfsBlawg has this post by Matt Bodie on “Miers Myths,” debunking some of the reasons leading to her withdrawal.
As at the beginning of every Term, the Court has been re-listing a variety of petitions from week to week. Some will produce summary reversals, others dissents from the denial of cert., others possibly grants (as a 4th vote is persuaded to vote to hear the case), and others nothing at all.
The President has accepted Harriet Miers’s request to withdraw her nomination, explaining that the nomination was of less importance to him than the ability to keep confidential certain White House documents (principally involving Executive authority in the current wars).
Thanks to How Appealing for posting the petition in No. 05-533, Padilla v. Hanft. I posted some preliminary thoughts on the oddities of the court of appeals’ decision here and here. Update: The case has been docketed as 05-533. Here are the questions the petition presents: “1.
When the deadline came and went for Harriet Miers to submit her revised answers to Senators’ questions yesterday, many took it as a reliable sign that her nomination was to be withdrawn.
Just 24 days after President Bush nominated Harriet E. Miers for the Supreme Court, the politics of replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has changed markedly.
It’s extraordinary how much attention the Hamdan petition has been getting as it has been relisted by the Court. I don’t ever remember seeing a case continue to get this kind of attention at such a late stage.
The Court has released the transcripts of the eight arguments from the first sitting of the Term, including that in No. 04-623, Gonzales v. Oregon.
Here is Jeffrey Toobin’s article from the Oct. 31 edition of The New Yorker.
No. 05-184, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, has been re-listed for the Court’s conference on Friday, October 28.
A Canadian company that makes the hand-held BlackBerry devices, allowing users to get wireless access to e-mail, messaging and Internet links, failed on Wednesday to get a delay of a ruling that it infringed on patents for integrating electronic mail with wireless networks.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has notified Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers that he is prepared to examine closely at her nomination hearings how she would handle, as a judge, a wide range of issues on warmaking power under the Constitution.
Almost from the beginning, the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers has been in trouble with prominent conservative columnists. It is by no means certain, however, that those writers are having an appreciable effect — except perhaps in hardening the opposition among conservatives who have been similarly troubled.
On the Miers nomination: TaxProf Blog discusses the tax shelter opinions issued by the Locke, Liddell & Sapp while Miers was managing partner here. Concurring Opinions has this post on whether or not blogs are influencing the Miers nomination. Debate Link tackles the same question here.
Concurring Opinions has this post on “How to Develop a Supreme Court Practice.” The post cites to this article by Tony Mauro comparing the Supreme Court practice of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr with that of Jones Day.
(This is another in a continuing series of reports on the impact on later cases of the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in June 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, creating new rights to sexual privacy for homosexuals.)
On the Miers nomination: Think Progress has this post on the fact that Miers was suspended from the Texas bar. PrawfsBlawg has this post on the Democratic Party’s response – or lack thereof – to the Miers’ nomination. Here PrawfsBlawg also asks whether or not Miers is a pro-business nominee.
For years, close observers of the Supreme Court’s work have speculated about the reasons why the Justices decide so few cases each Term. No one has been able to say, with certainty, why the Court has shaved its caseload down to half of its size of a quarter-century ago.
(Seven months ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged with a crime in the U.S. for a role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He has since pleaded guilty to terrorism charges, and the only issue remaining is his punishment.
On the Miers nomination: Election Law Blog directs us to Miers’ trial testimony from the Dallas voting rights litigation. The Volokh Conspiracy has this bit of trivia on President Bush’s plan for appointing judges.
We’d like to take a moment to congratulate our past and present students and summer associates on the terrific clerkships that they have lined up for next year (and, in some cases, the following year): James Darrow (Stanford 2006): Judge John Gleeson (E.D.N.Y.) Anisha Dasgupta (Yale 2006): Judge
News organizations have urged the new Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, Jr., to make more of the Supreme Court’s work accessible to the public and the media — including providing same-day availability of the audiotapes of all of the Court’s oral arguments.
The two senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday asked Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers to fill in a number of significant blanks she left Tuesday when she supplied answers to a lengthy Committee questionnaire.
On the Miers nomination: Law Dork has these musings on judicial independence. Tax Prof Blog asks, are the Feds investigating Miers’ firm’s tax shelter work? Concurring Opinions has this post on why social conservatives might be supporting Miers.
Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that she had been involved as a private attorney in three cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court — none of which was granted review.
Via How Appealing, John Fund has a very interesting Opinion Journal piece on assurances that may have been given regarding Harriet Miers and Roe.
The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for a Missouri inmate to obtain an abortion over the objection of state officials. In a brief order, the Court refused the state’s request to stay a federal judge’s order requiring that the inmate be taken to a St. Louis clinic.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the federal government’s appeal seeking to salvage its opportunity to force the tobacco industy to surrender $280 billion in profits.
The Supreme Court is expected to act early this week on the attempt by Missouri state officials to keep a pregnant prison inmate from obtaining an abortion.
Tax Prof Blog has this post assessing the impact of tax shelter opinions on the Miers nomination. Volokh has this post on the sentiment against Janice Rogers Brown as a Supreme Court nominee. The Volokh Conspiracy also discusses the ways in which the White House is selling the Miers nomination here.
On the Miers Nomination: Concurring Opinions has this post asking,”Is The Nation really willing to endorse originalism in order to score a few points against corporations and Harriet Miers?” The post is in response to this article by Morton Mintz titled, “Ten Questions for Harriet Miers.” TaxProf
ACSBlog has just posted this piece on why the Supreme Court should hear Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. It is written by guest blogger David H. Remes, a lawyer who is representing a group of generals and admirals involved in the case.
Columbia Professor Mike Dorf has this article up on the American Prospect Online arguing that its time for the Court to take up Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.