Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS Live blog of orders and opinions June 17th, 2013
Sctus Blog ^

Posted on 06/17/2013 7:00:00 AM PDT by Perdogg

SCOTUS Live blog of orders and opinions June 17th, 2013


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alito; arizonacitizens; arizonavoters; livescotus; miranda; scotus

1 posted on 06/17/2013 7:00:00 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Is this the Big Day or the Big Week?


2 posted on 06/17/2013 7:03:49 AM PDT by InterceptPoint (If I had a tag line this is where you would find it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

We may get Texas and Alabama cases today, same sex marriage not expected until June 27th.


3 posted on 06/17/2013 7:04:54 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

2d decision: Pay-for-delay pharma deals may violate the antitrust laws: 5-3 ruling.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 17, 2013



Here we go. 1st #scotus decision via liveblog: Salinas - silence does not invoke right against self-incrimination. http://t.co/gR2KdgaNL5.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 17, 2013


4 posted on 06/17/2013 7:06:34 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Salinas, decided 5-4, holds that the government can comment on a witness's silence in not answering police questions.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 17, 2013


5 posted on 06/17/2013 7:10:42 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Majority is Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Dissent by Roberts, joined by Scalia and Kennedy. Alito dissents separately.


6 posted on 06/17/2013 7:12:01 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

3d ruling (Alleyene): major criminal ruling - facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be proved to the jury, not a judge.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 17, 2013


7 posted on 06/17/2013 7:12:43 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

bkmk


8 posted on 06/17/2013 7:13:10 AM PDT by novemberslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thomas joined the courts Liberals in Alleyene. decision here

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-9335_i4dk.pdf


9 posted on 06/17/2013 7:14:08 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The fourth opinion is in Maracich v. Spears, the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act case.

4th ruling (Maracich): Lawyers can’t use DMV records to solicit clients. 5-4.


10 posted on 06/17/2013 7:16:06 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

One more opinion today...


11 posted on 06/17/2013 7:16:54 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: novemberslady

We may get a biggie today.....


12 posted on 06/17/2013 7:18:46 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: maggief; thouworm; penelopesire; SE Mom; Nachum; MestaMachine

Should be a busy week!


13 posted on 06/17/2013 7:19:05 AM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Decision from Kennedy or Roberts today.....one more


14 posted on 06/17/2013 7:20:24 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Looks like Scalia’s next.


15 posted on 06/17/2013 7:21:19 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; maggief; thouworm; penelopesire; SE Mom; Nachum; MestaMachine

5th and final ruling: AZ voting rights (not Voting Rights Act): proof of citizenship requirement forbidden by federal law.


16 posted on 06/17/2013 7:22:23 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kingu

5th and final ruling: AZ voting rights (not Voting Rights Act): proof of citizenship requirement forbidden by federal law.


17 posted on 06/17/2013 7:23:06 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; maggief; thouworm; penelopesire; SE Mom; Nachum; MestaMachine; kingu

This is the case involving Arizona’s requirement that would-be voters provide proof of citizenship before being able to register to vote. Arizona’s proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the federal law requiring that states use the federal voter registration form. Justice Kennedy concurs in part and in judgment. Justices Thomas and Alito both filed dissenting opinions.


18 posted on 06/17/2013 7:24:45 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
5th and final ruling: AZ voting rights (not Voting Rights Act): proof of citizenship requirement forbidden by federal law.

TELL ME THIS ISN'T WHAT I THINK IT IS.

19 posted on 06/17/2013 7:25:12 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("AP" clearly stands for American Pravda. Our news media has become completely and proudly Soviet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: novemberslady; hoosiermama; maggief; thouworm; penelopesire; SE Mom; Nachum; MestaMachine; kingu; ..

that’s all folks for today, more on Thursday.


20 posted on 06/17/2013 7:25:37 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
See you Thursday... Ahh, the wonder of watching our rights being stripped away.
21 posted on 06/17/2013 7:25:42 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

This is the case involving Arizona’s requirement that would-be voters provide proof of citizenship before being able to register to vote. Arizona’s proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the federal law requiring that states use the federal voter registration form. Justice Kennedy concurs in part and in judgment. Justices Thomas and Alito both filed dissenting opinions.


22 posted on 06/17/2013 7:26:18 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thanks


23 posted on 06/17/2013 7:26:55 AM PDT by novemberslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: novemberslady

See ya Thursday....

Arizona decision

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf


24 posted on 06/17/2013 7:28:32 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thanks Perdogg!


25 posted on 06/17/2013 7:34:29 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

you are welcome


26 posted on 06/17/2013 7:45:28 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thanks Perdogg,Do you have a ping list for this?


27 posted on 06/17/2013 7:56:06 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fatima; BuckeyeTexan

BuckeyeTexan has the ping list


28 posted on 06/17/2013 7:57:18 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

K


29 posted on 06/17/2013 8:12:15 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thanks for ping.

From Alito’s dissenting opinion:

But when read in context, that provision simply identifies the time within which a State must process registration applications; it says nothing about whether a State may require the submission of supplemental in- formation.

The Court’s more expansive interpretation of §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B) sneaks in a qualification that is nowhere to be found in the text.

The Court takes pains to say that a State need not register an applicant who properly completes and submits a federal form but is known by the State to be ineligible. See ante, at 12–13.

But the Court takes the position that a State may not demand that an applicant supply any additional information to confirm voting eligibility. Nothing in §1973gg– 6(a)(1)(B) supports this distinction.

What is a State to do if it has reason to doubt an applicant’s eligibility but cannot be sure that the applicant is ineligible?

Must the State either grant or deny registration without communicating with the applicant? Or does the Court believe that a State may ask for additional information in individual cases but may not impose a categorical requirement for all applicants? If that is the Court’s position, on which provision of the NVRA does it rely?

The Court’s reading of §1973gg–6(a)(1)(B) is atextual and makes little sense.

* * * Properly interpreted, the NVRA permits Arizona to require applicants for federal voter registration to provide proof of eligibility. I therefore respectfully dissent.


30 posted on 06/17/2013 8:14:37 AM PDT by thouworm (Steyn: They let [Stevens] die, and then told lies over his coffin.They did that to one of their own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Good thing the. TX Constitution have WAY more protections regarding the right to remain silent than the Federal Constitution provides.
TX prevents the use of post arrest silence AND pre arrest silence.

I need to read this opinion before I go further, but the makeup of the 5-4 court doesn’t look right here based on my knowledge of their prior cases.


31 posted on 06/17/2013 8:18:54 AM PDT by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Clump

Also, just to clarify what I said about TX law.

This SCOTUS case was actually a TX murder trial in state court.
The key is for the defense attorney to specifically object based on Article 1 Section 10 of the TX Constitution.
Most attorneys will simply object based on the 5the Amendment to the US Constitution.
That is a huge mistake when the state tries to use pre arrest silence against the defendant.


32 posted on 06/17/2013 8:51:40 AM PDT by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: thouworm
What is a State to do if it has reason to doubt an applicant’s eligibility but cannot be sure that the applicant is ineligible?

How about having them register to vote in state elections first and requiring proof of citizenship to vote in state elections. If they can't vote in state elections they are not on the state eligible voters and you can arrest them for perjury if they vote in federal elections

33 posted on 06/17/2013 9:13:09 AM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

34 posted on 06/17/2013 9:50:02 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

The ideological mix of the justices in the majority on some of these recent decisions is confusing me. What does the legal community think? Are y’all surprised by the atypical makeup of the majority?


35 posted on 06/17/2013 10:23:34 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Scalia and Thomas do not seem to be voting together as often.


36 posted on 06/17/2013 10:34:56 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
The ideological mix of the justices in the majority on some of these recent decisions is confusing me. What does the legal community think? Are y’all surprised by the atypical makeup of the majority?

The "liberal" vs. "conservative" labeling of the justices is a shorthand that is somewhat oversimplified and does not always predict votes. As I pointed out about last week's cases, Scalia is often on the defense side in criminal cases and Breyer is very often on the prosecution side. Even Ginsburg is sometimes pro-prosecution in criminal cases.

Today's rulings, however, have been remarked upon in the legal blogosphere as being surprising. Few observers expected Scalia's vote in the Arizona voting case, and the votes in Alleyne (the 6th Amendment/ sentencing case) are very unusual--Thomas is almost never on the defense side in a closely-split criminal case, and Scalia, who dissented in Alleyne has been on the defense side in previous cases on that issue.

37 posted on 06/17/2013 10:51:04 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Yes, that's unsettling, but tt's more than that. Alito can be counted on to vote conservatively but usually favors federal power. Not this time. Up is down.

I simply have NO idea what we're going get in Windsor, Hollingsworth, Fisher, and Shelby County.

38 posted on 06/17/2013 10:57:09 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
How about having them register to vote in state elections first and requiring proof of citizenship to vote in state elections. If they can't vote in state elections they are not on the state eligible voters and you can arrest them for perjury if they vote in federal elections

hmmm...

Take a look at this:

Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court Case

39 posted on 06/17/2013 9:14:10 PM PDT by thouworm (Steyn: They let [Stevens] die, and then told lies over his coffin.They did that to one of their own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; hoosiermama; Lurking Libertarian

meant to ping to post 39


40 posted on 06/17/2013 9:17:51 PM PDT by thouworm (Steyn: They let [Stevens] die, and then told lies over his coffin.They did that to one of their own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson