SCOTUS DECISION WATCH- Live Thread- 10am

Sun Times & AP ^ | June 27, 2005

[RobFromGa]

RULINGS ON MONDAY?

A look at the remaining cases of the Supreme Court's term:

TEN COMMANDMENTS: The constitutionality of Ten Commandments in public buildings and on government property, under the First Amendment's ban on an ''establishment'' of religion.

FILE SHARING: Whether the entertainment industry may sue technology manufacturers over consumers who use their products to steal music and movies online.

INTERNET ACCESS: A test of the tight control cable companies hold over high-speed Internet service in a case that will determine whether the industry must open up its lines to competitors.

DEATH PENALTY: A look at courts' flexibility to reopen cases, in an appeal that asks if an appeals court was wrong to order more study of a Tennessee Death Row inmate's claims.

RESTRAINING ORDERS: Whether police can be sued for how they enforce restraining orders.

[Preachin']

"Stevens is a conservative hater he will stay on until his death or the hildebeast comes in."

He is 85 years old. The idea of him staying on three more years is difficult for me.

I don't necessarily expect him to resign, but I'm sure we can all accept that three years is tougher to stretch out at that age.

[rwfromkansas]

In the file-sharing ruling, this is what the SCOTUS essentially said:

Anything that could be used for illegal purposes is wrong.

Say goodbye to your web brower. People use it for kiddie porn and hacking.

Say goodbye to file sharing, which can be used for legal purposes as well as illegal, just like your VCR, which the court used to say was not the problem....the people were the problem. Now the VCR is the problem.

Say goodbye to your guns.

Say goodbye to anything that can be used in an illegal manner. The companies can be sued now.

Unbelievable.

This has much greater, dangerous far-reaching implications than the Ten Commandments rulings.

[little jeremiah]

I'm sure you all have seen this, or will, but I'll ping it out nonetheless.

It's a shameful day, a shameful decision, a decision that mocks Truth with a capital T.

The Nazgul who voted that the 10 Commandments cannot be displayed because it's an endorsement (or whatever their foul words were) of religion, are thereby endorsing atheism.

If (some) people think that words and actions have no reaction, they're in for a verrrry bumpy ride. It's calling reaping what you sow - karma - the natural law that God has created. Everything we do and say will have some kind of reaction, sooner or later. There is no way we can avoid it. The laws of man are often unjust or unjustly applied; criminals "get away with it" all the time, and sometimes the innocent are punished.

But the laws of the universe that God has created are irreversible, inescapable, and always just. You and I may not see the result; that's ok. Perfect justice will happen. And it is all for our benefit; He wants us to become enlightened to the truth that He is the merciful and all powerful master, and we are (so many have forgotten) the loving servants.

So now the SCOTUS has said that having the basic rules given to mankind are VERBOTEN if it seems as though they are displayed in a serious manner. But it is just fine to put condoms on cucumbers in schools (also government facilities) and teach kids about every perverted method of sexual gratification.

The basic laws so that humans can be human are essentially the same in every monotheist religion. They are not sectarian. They are the foundation of all civilizations that rise above bestiality. They were given to mankind for our benefit. To reject them is to reject the good God Who gave them to us.

(Freepmail me if you want on/off the Moral Absolutes pinglist.)

[Tree of Liberty]

I think it was William Kristol that said it was unlikely that retirements would be announced during the session since it's considered private business, not court business.

[volvox]

So it is all about your motivation of displaying the Ten Commandments! How sad! How do they plan on reading people's minds and hearts.

[BlackRazor]

He is 85 years old. The idea of him staying on three more years is difficult for me. I don't necessarily expect him to resign, but I'm sure we can all accept that three years is tougher to stretch out at that age.

I think the Democrats were saying similar things about Strom Thurmond for close to two decades! :)

[volvox]

It looks like motivation. They are saying KC was religiously motivated while I'm guessing they are going to say TX was historically motivated.

[rwfromkansas]

well, at least we got one ruling today.

[Rutles4Ever]

The wheels are coming off our country. That's all you need to know. Politicians are worthless, from the White House down. Cheney gets on TV one day and says the insurgency is in its 'last throes', and then yesterday Rumsfeld says it could take up to 12 YEARS to put an end to it. Well which is it, Mr. Vice President??

I've been a die-hard Republican my whole life. From grade school on, I knew instinctively that the Democrats did not represent true American values. I was blessed to have Ronald Reagen as my president to help shape my political conscience. There's something wrong with this White House. I'm sorry, I know it's sacrilege, and if you go back to my posts before, during, and after the election, you will see that I am not some troll. With Al Gonzalez likely getting the nomination to the Supremes, we can kiss any hope of getting Roe v. Wade overturned goodbye. What kind of "conservative" president would even float his name?

Flame away, everyone. I've had it with this fakery. We're simply not in it to win it. We keep throwing bouquets of roses at the Chinese and they're going to turn around and destroy us. We know where Bin Laden is but won't go and get him. The U.N. keeps giving us the middle finger and the administration publicly supports Kofi Annan. Bush 41 has a man-crush on Bill Clinton. Bush 43 has a man-crush on Vicente Fox. And, frankly, even as a strident hawk, I'm starting to wonder if our boys (and girls) are dying only to see the Sunnis return to power in Iraq when we leave.

All right, flame away. Maybe I'll get suspended or something, but we deserve better than what we're getting at this point.

[rwfromkansas]

I must admit, I dont understand how this one would be okay, but wow.

[Recall]

Pour me one of those beers. On top of all of this the voice of Piglet (Winnie the Pooh) died today.

[pepperhead]

He is 85 years old. The idea of him staying on three more years is difficult for me.

I wonder how much work he is actually doing at the Supreme Court. At that age I am guessing his assistants might be carrying his load.

[RobFromGa]

Bears repeating re: retirements from SCOTUS.

---

A scenario for Monday

Amid layer upon layer of uncertainty, one thing seems reasonably predictable about the Supreme Court's public session on Monday, the last public sitting of the current Term. That is that the Court will formally recess for the summer without a word being said about any retirement, or retirements, from the Court. Too much, however, can be read into that, and should not be.

At the end of the session, some observers new to the Court and sitting in the audience -- filled with a sense of expectation -- might think something is up after the last opinion is announced Monday. At that point, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will begin a round of thank yous, primarily to the Court's staff for its work during the Term. That, however, very likely would not be a prelude to an announcement about his own plans.

There are several scenarios that may occur, but most of them reflect the traditional view of the Justices that the bench, itself, is not the place to announce a departure. A decision to end one's service is considered to be a highly personal, not an institutional, choice, so there is no action by the Court to be taken officially -- on the bench, or off of it. The only recent retirement announced from the bench was that of Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.; Chief Justice Rehnquist did announce that from the bench, presumably at Powell's request.

There is no binding protocol on how a Justice quits, but there are some customs. With the understanding that this is not a firm prediction about the way Monday's events will go, here is one scenario that could play out that day.

The Justices will assemble behind the velvet curtains to the rear of the bench, a few minutes before 10, and shake hands all around. There may be some small talk, but the opinions of the day probably won't be mentioned -- unless someone exercises the rarely used option of calling back an opinion that is about ready to be announced. That is not likely. Almost certainly, no one in that intimate little gathering will be talking about the retirement question.

After the Court's Marshal annnounces the Justices, they will enter through the parted curtains, and take their seats. Rehnquist will announce that orders have been issued and will be released by the Clerk, and will then call on the junior Justice who has an opinion ready to announce. If normal practice prevails, the six opinions that are expected to be announced will be released by the Justices/authors in order of reverse seniority.

At that point on many decision days, the Court would admit some new members to its lawyers' bar, but that is not expected on Monday. Rehnquist will announce the end of the Term, and distribute the verbal thank yous. The Marshal will then rap the gavel, just off the bench to the right, and announce that the Court will stand in recess until the first Monday in October. The Justices will then leave the bench.

After that public session, the Court will hold a closed-door meeting, to deal with new pending cases that have not yet been acted upon. Those orders are likely to be announced the following morning, Tuesday, with the Court not in session.

Rehnquist would not have completed his duties for the Term until after the private session Monday.

If he is going to retire now, that would probably come in a simple statement released by the Court's public information office, probably after a short interval to allow the President to be notified first, perhaps by a hand-delivered letter. But that would not be likely until Monday afternoon, at the earliest. Rehnquist personally would not want to mix in his personal announcement with an official session of the Court.

If such an announcement does not come on Monday, that would not be conclusive proof that it would not happen later in the week, or some time over the summer. Rehnquist has kept his own counsel about what he may do, and even his colleagues do not seem to know.

The short piece of advice for the hordes waiting in the blogosphere and at the Court for an announcement on Monday is to wait patiently for something official; media speculation will not mean much.

[Tree of Liberty]

That's like being handed a little paper umbrella when you're in the middle of a s^!% storm.

[OXENinFLA]

Do they have to announce if they're going to retire while in session?

[Fury]

ALSO .. USSC refuses reporters appeal on CIA Leak

Good....

[ReagansRaiders]

Hmmmmmm.... Nullification committees. I like that idea. Given that both Jefferson and Madison came from VA, we here in VA would be ripe to start this.

[rwfromkansas]

I don't know....this was the one I thought would be ruled illegal because IT HAS *LESS* of a non-religious element thatn the other one.

Why they ruled this one okay is purely a fluke.

[RobFromGa]

No.

[Tree of Liberty]

No, in fact, it'd be unusual if they did that.