Posted on 04/26/2007 12:57:35 PM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON (AP) -- When Chief Justice John Roberts took his center seat for the first time in October 2005, John Paul Stevens, the court's senior justice, wished him "a long and happy career in our common calling."
This week, Roberts had some words for Stevens, who turned 87 last week. And they were not nearly so kind.
In a pointed dissent from decisions overturning death sentences for two Texas inmates, Roberts accused Stevens of engaging in revisionist history.
Stevens, leading a five-justice majority, said Texas state courts should have set aside the death sentences because the Supreme Court had made clear that such sentences could not stand if they were imposed as a result of flawed jury instructions that Texas used until 1991.
Roberts, a dissenter in six of the court's 10 most recent rulings, wrote that contrary to being clear, Supreme Court death penalty law over the years has been a "dog's breakfast," a mess of "divided, conflicted and ever-changing analyses." State courts would find it difficult, if not impossible, to discern federal law from those rulings, he said.
Roberts concluded his 16-page dissent on a sarcastic note, at odds with his amiable image. "Still, perhaps there is no reason to be unduly glum," Roberts said, taking direct aim at Stevens. "After all, today the author of a dissent issued in 1988 writes two majority opinions concluding that the views established in that dissent actually represented 'clearly established' federal law at that time. So there is hope yet for the views expressed in this dissent."
"Encouraged by the majority's determination that the future can change the past, I respectfully dissent," he concluded.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
"time to pin a note to his sweater and drop him off at the dog track every day" No meanness meant to the elderly, but when a guy like Stevens hangs on when he's really not up to par, it's just a rotten disservice to the country and to the Constitution.
LOL!!!
Thanks so much! I appreciate the help!
A majority in the Senate and $5.00 gets you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
With the 'rats having utterly no respect for the Constitution or for Senate precedent, they blocked votes on judicial nominees for years. We never had 50 Senators willing to go "nucular" on them because our own "moderates" wouldn't want to lose their power. So we had to go stealth on the Senate, because the 'rats would have filibustered an openly conservative candidate.
We had 55 Republicans, but never 55 Conservatives or even 50.
GWB did a great job, and twenty-five years from now odds are Roberts will still be in the Big Chair. My question about Ann was not rhetorical. She should come out and give credit to the President where credit is due.
If there had been 70 'pub Senators and 60 Conservatives then her complaint would have been accurate. We may have the truth on our side, but we didn't have enough Senators worthy of our President. Even this very day, that 'rat Iraq Bill only passed because of Hagel and the other weasel. Add the others (Snowe, Collins, etc.) and it was a job just getting stealth nominees and Janice Rogers Brown through.
Oh and great name BTW. I don’t know how a Samurai Scot would dress for battle but a S.S. would be a hell of a warrior.
The normal definition of a “dog’s breakfast” is a jumble, a SNAFU, a mixture of the unknown, disgusting, and the barely identifiable; it is intended to refer to a pile of vomit and/or garbage.
I was thinking of 'dingo's breakfast' - from the Dinkum Aussie Dictionary:
Dingo's breakfast : a yawn, a leak and a good look round (i.e. no breakfast)
meanwhile, the Governor of Tennessee effectively ended the death penalty in the state. Inmates on death row are cheering.
Althought billed as a moderate, when it comes to pandering to his far left constituents, Phil Bredeson is as bad as they come.
Smart appellate judges don't take disagreement with their opinions -- even highly pointed disagreement -- as personal. You put the proposed majority out there, you catch some dissents from judges who disagree. When the issues are important (and just about everything that reaches the Supremes is important), then you can expect dissents (and revisions to the majority to respond to the dissent) to be downright polemic.
It comes with the job. Apparently the reporter either has no idea of this, or he's just using the opportunity to slam the Chief Justice.
If Stevens is taking this personally, it's just one more indication that it's past time for him to retire.
Describes so many SC rulings, from Brown onwards. We have muddled law on relgion, abortion, the death penalty, largely because the Court has so little respect for precedent.
From this dissent, which is AWESOME to read:
-—>>>>
“The convictions were upheld upon direct review...
“This Court had considered similar challenges to the SAME instructions no fewer than five times ... only one ... upheld it. ... Indeed, [in later cases] every one of the remaining Justices who had been in [that] majority [dissented in a later case] on the ground that the Court was failing to adhere to [it].
“We give ourselves far too much credit in claiming ... that our ebbing and flowing decisions in this area give rise to “clearly established” federal law. ... instead a dog’s breakfast” of dividing, conflicting and ever-changing analyses. ... as [the Justices on this Court] shifted from being in the majority, plurality, concurrence, or dissent from case to case, repeatingly lamenting the failure of their colleagues to follow a consistent path. Whatever the law may be today, the Court’s ruling that ‘twas always so -— and that state courts were “objectively unreasonable” not to know it, ... is utterly revisionist.
“In 1987 [case]... Court begins by stating that the principle the state court violated was “firmly established”... the only thing clear ... on the pertinent question ... however, is that it was unsettled and confused. ... [leaving] open the possibility that mitigating evidence might not be within the reach of the jury...
“The next occasion was ... A plurality of the Court ... rejected the argument that a jury must be permitted to give “independent” effect to mitigating evidence...
“The Court today places great weight on a [2-Justice] opinion ... express[ing] “doubts” about the plurality view that mitigating evidence need not be given effect ...
“According to the Court today, a discerning state judge should have seen that federal law was “clearly established” on the point by [those] concurring and dissenting opinions, not the plurality[!]...
“A state court looking at our pertinent precedents ... would next have to consider the significance of ... [in which] the four dissenters ... -— including the author of today’s opinion -— complained that the majority’s discussion ... was “strangely reminiscent” of the position of [that case’s] dissenters. [[[ LOL ... sorry ]]]
“... three years later, the Court sought to clarify ... [big paragraph] ... Thus, ... the Court rejected the reading ... that the Court today endorses ...
[much later]”In short, [LOL] a state court reading our opinions would see an ongoing debate over the meaning and significance ... [and] It is in this context that the Court today tells us that the state courts should have regarded [case] as “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
“... I do not understand how the author of today’s opinion can say that [case] did not disturb the principle of [other case] ... {sorry ... too convoluted for me to simplify] when he joined in a dissent in Graham stating that ‘[Graham’s] position is identical to that of Penry” and that Graham’s case “is controlled by Penry”. That seems to suggest that Graham was inconsistent with Penry. I do not understand how the author of today’s opinion can say that [case] had no effect ... when he joined a dissent ... [which is now] dismissed as just an application of “our basic legal principle[s]” which Justices can disagree; [when] back then it “upset our settled Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.” And what of [other case]!? There the author of today’s opinion joined a dissent claiming the majority was adopting the rule rejected in Penry!
“In fact, Penry is not even consistent with the reading the Court [today] ascribes to it -
“As might be expected in the light of the foregoing, judges called upon to apply these precedents were confused by the ambiguity of this Court’s pronouncements. See [...]
“It is a familiar adage that history is written by the victors, but it goes too far to claim ... “clearly established” ... [much later] ... The state court’s approach to this question was plainly correct; ... [and] In reaching today’s result, the Court also takes advantage of eight years of hindsight and relies on three cases that postdate the state court’s ruling. ... AEDPA requires state courts to reasonably apply clearly established federal law. It does not require them to have a crystal ball.
[much later... conclusion]”Still, perhaps there is no reason to be unduly glum. After all, today the author of a dissent issued in 1988 writes two majority opinions concluding the views expressed in that dissent actually represented “clearly established” federal law at that time. So there is hope yet for the views expressed in this dissent, not simply down the road, but tunc pro nunc. Encouraged by the majority’s determination that the future can change the past, I respectfully dissent.
Bush has been excellent on judges, no question about that.
Thanks for that the post.
What a Rock Star!
I’m as impressed with this as I am with Thomas’ concurrence in U.S. v Lopez.
has been British slang for “a complete mess” since at least the 1930s. While no one took the time to write down the exact origin of the phrase, the allusion involved seems to be to a failed culinary effort, perhaps a burned or botched omelet, fit only for consumption by the mouth of last resort, Fido.In truth, I’ve always pictured something a little worse, as in #27.
I hate it when people use the words GWB and SCROTUM in the same sentence. Don’t ask me why.
I like THAT. I'm going to look for a chance to use it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.