Thursday, January 13, 2005

Why the Supreme Court appointments don't worry me

The main decisions reached recently by the court: against presidential excess at Gitmo & indefinite detainees, against the anti-sodomy law, and now against mandatory sentences have all been decisions I've agreed with. Despite all the sturm und drang with many Supreme Court appointments, the justices usually come to the right decision.

What an odd collection in the majority yesterday: Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas. Your 2 arch conservatives and 3 liberals decide against mandatory sentencing. In the minor case, Ginsburg then sides with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor. So 2 liberals, 2 centrists, and 1 conservative. For all the fear on the left of Bush's appointments, I can't see the effect being as dramatic as the fears, though I will expect a blood bath when the next opening comes due. For a knowledgeable write-up of the case here's SCOTUSBlog (thought their write-up of the Gitmo, Padilla, and Hamedi decisions was better than Volokh's). The VC does do a nice job with their 3-part write-up yesterday - comes from my fave member of the VC Orin Kerr.

Reading through the explanations does drive home why I never even entertained the idea of going to law school. Either too dull or requires too much WMC.

UPDATE: Changed link per request by PhD candidate specializing in WMC.



Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?