Posted on 02/25/2019 4:36:22 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the decisive vote in a California pay dispute case before a lower court doesn’t count -- because the vote came from a judge who died before the ruling was issued.
The case from the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals involved a dispute over pay filed by a Fresno County government employee.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was seen as a progressive icon on the bench, heard the dispute and participated in a preliminary vote. The appeals court then issued an opinion in his name nine days after he passed away in March 2018.
But the high court, vacating the decision of a federal appeals court, said Monday that “federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity.”
“The upshot is that Judge Reinhardt’s vote made a difference,” said the Supreme Court in its unsigned ruling. “Was that lawful?”
The justices said it was not. “Because Judge Reinhardt was no longer a judge at the time when the en banc decision in the case was filed, the 9th Circuit erred in counting him as a member of the majority.”
The Supreme Court itself follows the same practice.
The votes of Justice Antonin Scalia issued after his sudden death three years ago did not count, even though he had participated in a number of argued cases earlier in the court’s term. No decision is official until it is formally released by the court, and every member of the court must be on the bench at the time.
Reinhardt was one of the longest-serving federal judges when he died at age 87, and one of the most liberal on the 9th Circuit. He was appointed to the federal bench in 1980 by President Carter.
The case was sent back to the 9th Circuit for...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
He will still be voting in future elections, though.
The dead judge will no doubt continue to vote Democrat.
Eleven seconds apart! (-:
Do we know if it was a unanimous vote of the Supreme Court, or did any of the liberals defect on this?
It seems a common sense ruling, but wouldn’t put it past the liberals to vote against vacating the ruling, since he was a liberal judge.
The case would never have happened if the judge had been conservative. As soon as he died they would have draw a line over all of his text.
Buzzy Ginsberg was unavailable for comments.
LOL!
I’m usually the one with the slow fingers.
Perhaps they will have to include mediums (media?) In future deliberations where this takes place — to ascertain the deceased Judge’s intent, of course…
The New Jersey Supremes changed their election laws on the fly when a Democrat candidate for US senator died, and allowed the Democrat Party to field a candidate in contravention to law.
Their reasoning: The party was entitled to having a candidate. As if people vote for parties and not individuals.
Would they have done this for the Republican party? And if political party is subject of elections...why bother running candidates at all? Just have the voters pull the lever for an Elephant or a Donkey.
It was an unsigned opinion, which I think means no dissent. Sotomayor concurred, and she was the only judge mentioned by name.
This is really basic law. The Ninth Circus didn’t know this without the Supremes having to tell them??
Evidently not.
“federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity.”
Well, I guess that’s sorta like a term limit.
“If it’s the last thing I do...”
And it was.
The U.S. has enough problems with dead voters, now we have to worry about dead judges.
Before SCOTUS rules on anything we need to see RBG’s certified EKG/EEG at the time of the ruling.
Good reminder about RBG
They conveniently forgot!
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.