Law, Legal Affairs, the Constitution, & the Supreme Court
1. Opinion | A Blow Against Racism in Jury Selection: NYT Editorial Board. "A Blow Against Racism in Jury Selection The Supreme Court took a Mississippi prosecutor to task for repeatedly excluding black jurors from a murder trial." This editorial reminds us of how the U.S. Supreme Court addresses matters of life and death, in this case, within the reality of pervasive racism. Note that the majority opinion was written by Justice Kavanaugh and that Thomas (Clarance) and Gorsuch dissent (more about that in the next article).
2. "Clarence Thomas’s Astonishing Opinion on a Racist Mississippi Prosecutor" by Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker. Wow! An example of how unexpected votes on the Court can sometimes occur. Thomas has always been an enigma, but he's now out from the shadow of Scalia and seems to be gaining Gorsuch as a sidekick. But why challenge such a blatantly racist conviction? Identity isn't defining, nor should it be, but then one would think identity (in this case racial) should prove influential. It turns out that personal quirks and ideologies can trump [sic] identities. I haven't read the dissent, but having read both of the two articles above, I don't know that I can do so with any good faith objectivity. Am I wrong?
3. Opinion | ‘Most of Government Is Unconstitutional’ by Professor Nicholas Bagley (Law, University of Michigan). By the narrowest and most harrowing of margins, the Supreme Court in Gundy v. U.S. didn't turn back the clock to 1935 and strike down congressional delegations to administrative agencies. But Justice Alito, upholding this instance of delegation, signaled his willingness to take a different course, one that conservatives, grousing about the "administrative state" have long wanted to take. Yes, another case of judicial activism in the making. This could turn into a BFD.
4. Christians Win Again in the Supreme Court by Leslie Griffin writing in "Verdict," a law site. This is a case under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and it shows to Court dividing in unexpected ways. Only Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissent from a holding that a near century-old WWI memorial here in Maryland can remain although it is a cross; i.e., a Christian symbol. But the majority (including Breyer and Kagan), find that because of its age and the "secular" connotations of a cross, the cross can remain on public grounds. Again, hard cases can create strange bedfellows.
This article from the Washington Post provides another perspective and highlights to many ways that Court had (and continues) to address the Establishment Clause.
No comments:
Post a Comment