Supreme Court People and Events News - U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in People and Events Category

Many liberals want Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire immediately, despite her status as a liberal lion and the leader of the "left" side of the bench. Conservatives want her to stick around, again, despite her political leanings and even though she's shown no signs of slowing down whatsoever.

Why? Everybody is worried about Ginsburg's potential replacement. If she retires while President Barack Obama is in office, and before this year's midterms, there's a good chance she'll be replaced with a like-minded judge, leaving the 4-4-Kennedy split. Republicans, obviously, would prefer that she hold out, hoping that 2016 brings a conservative to White House (and one to her seat as well).

We've said it before, and so has Justice Ginsburg: As long as she's able, she's not planning to step aside for anyone. But an interesting article in The Daily Beast argues that it's already too late -- a filibuster would block a liberal replacement anyway.

How many times have you stared at Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and thought to yourself, "I can't help but wonder ... isn't RBG just an older Carrier Bradshaw?" Of course you have not. But if you understand that reference at all, you'll love the newest Supreme Court parody making the rounds around the Internet.

If you don't, well, we have a list of interesting cases set for the fall. Also, even though we just talked about the death penalty on Friday, the courts are ridin' again, west sidin' again, with the Ninth Circuit staying an execution pending a challenge to a state's secret lethal injection drugs. It's an issue that we've seen crop up repeatedly, nationwide, over the last couple of years, and now, it's a circuit split.

It's also the second anti-death penalty ruling to come from the Ninth Circuit's territory (the other decision was from a district court in California) in less than a week, both of which could end up on the Supreme Court's docket.

Supreme Court cases are interesting. But equally interesting is what happens next.

For example, who would've thought that last year's decision in Windsor would, within one year, lead to more than twenty court decisions in favor of gay marriage. Even in Justice Antonin Scalia's worst nightmares, it didn't happen that quickly.

The Court's term just ended, but the fallout has been immediate: the ruling against a Massachusetts abortion protest buffer zone has already led local governments to reevaluate their own variants of the laws, while the media continues to lament the Court's decision in the contraceptive coverage cases, especially after the Court issued a controversial order late last week regarding exemption paperwork.

And, of course, the left is still freaking out about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's age and unwillingness to retire.

The question has never been whether the Obama administration would lose in the Noel Canning recess appointments case -- it was how badly they would lose. And lose they did, though the damage was limited by a Justice Stephen Breyer opinion that meandered through history to come up with a recess is a real recess if it's more than three and probably not less than ten unless it's a really scary vacancy rule.

Needless to say, Justice Antonin Scalia wasn't happy. He was so unhappy, in fact, that he not only wrote a classic Scalia rant, but he also read his concurrence from the bench -- an odd and rare move that typically only happens with passionate dissents.

It's quittin' time in three hours around these parts, which means one thing: running the clock out like an NFL team with the lead. You don't want to think, do you? (If you do, check out our coverage from earlier this week -- it's fun and informative!)

Instead, let's have a little bit of fun with a roundup of some Supreme Court-related things we've stumbled upon across the Internet this week, including Jay Z v. Scalia, calculating your conservative credentials, and a peek at what's to come in the next two weeks:

The topic of the week, thanks to The New York Times and the Supreme Court's lack of output this week, is the partisan polarization of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Republican appointees are voting conservatively, Democratic appointees are voting liberally, and my goodness, it's all just a little too predictable.

Case in point: five Republican appointees voted in favor of the Republican National Committee in last month's campaign finance decision. #conspiracy

How does one define failure as a jurist? Is it an inability to perform one's work without letting personal biases interfere? How about intellectual limitations or poor writing ability? Does an invisible career count?

There are plenty of lists of "worst U.S. Supreme Court decisions" out there, but what about the minds behind those terrible decisions? Here are our suggestions for the worst of all time, with one small caveat: We're leaving current justices off the list, because of possible partisan bias, the recency effect, and the notion that a person's legacy isn't cemented until it's history.

We've noted a possible rift between Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor before. The two justices, who both fall on the left end of the ideological spectrum, have, in the past, traded barbs in footnotes over Sotomayor's interpretation of past cases and the trial record. Justice Alito has also called her out in the past.

Then, in fifty-eight pages of dissent, parts of which were read aloud while the other justices cringed, she poked a few more justices, two of whom responded in their opinions in Schuette. The New York Times says that after nearly five years on the Court, she's finally found her voice, but that voice already seems to be grating on her colleagues.

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is old. That's not meant as an insult, it's just a fact -- a fact that makes his current pace all the more impressive. Here are a few fun facts about the retired justice:

Most people would take it easy, especially if they worked through their late eighties, but Justice Stevens, nearly four years later, and barely a week past his 94th birthday, is still ever present in the headlines. Kudos, for he's accomplished more in the last four years than most of us will in a lifetime.

We've discussed Justice Samuel Alito's truancy in the past, with the Justice sitting out of dozens of certiorari denials and initially recusing himself from this term's Limelight, Pom Wonderful, and Aereo cases, all likely due to conflicts presented by his stock portfolio. (Though the Justices do not disclose their reasons for self-recusal, Alito's financial disclosures have shed a lot of light on patterns of inherited and purchased stocks, past recusals, and botched non-recusals.)

With Alito benched, rather than on the bench, there was some concern over whether Aereo could end in a 4-4 tie, leaving the Second Circuit's pro-Aereo opinion intact, but also leaving the rest of the land (which includes anti-Aereo court decisions in other circuits) unaffected. Worry not though, as he just unrecused himself in Aereo and Pom Wonderful, days before oral arguments.