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

To: NinoFan

Based on your screen name, would it be fair to say that you are a fan of Scalia? If so, so am I.

I personally think the request for briefs on Michigan v. Jackson is because that issue was not raised by either party initially and the court does not rule on matters not presented.

I think the court will reaffirm Jackson by at least 6-3 and Thomas and Scalia will be in the majority, just like they were in the recent automobile search case.

As for the brief I posted, please note that the amicus brief filed on behalf of numerous former federal judges, federal prosecutors and the former Director of the FBI strongly supports upholding Jackson. Many of them appointed during Reagan’s term in office.


93 posted on 04/25/2009 3:47:51 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: SeaHawkFan

But why would the Court even ask for briefs on the issue if most of the justices weren’t considering overruling it? It’d be an odd thing to do if only three votes were there. The Court may ultimately decide not to overrule it, that’s true, but what makes you think Scalia and Thomas are in favor of Jackson? I wasn’t surprised by their votes in the recent auto search case, but this is quite different.


120 posted on 04/26/2009 12:45:29 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

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