Maryland v. King

Behold The Nine.

Elie here. In sports, we assess the legacy of athletes after every game. In politics, we assess the legacy of elected officials after every vote or scandal. So why can’t we do the same for Supreme Court justices?

In case you’ve been living under a rock, it’s been a pretty big week over at One First Street. The Court has decided a number of high-profile, controversial cases. Those decisions have come down with strong holdings, blistering dissents, and stinging concurrences. Each justice is aware that the words they’ve published this week could be around for a long time, long after they’re dead, and will be judged by history.

But who has time to wait for history? David Lat and I engage in some instant legacy analysis on what this week has meant for each of the nine justices on the Supreme Court. Let’s break it down in order of seniority, starting with the Chief….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “How Does This Week Affect The Legacies Of The Nine Supreme Court Justices?”

Well, they give zero f**ks. Not a single one.

They’re wearing a ridiculous piece of fashion because they do not care about your opinion. Remember Gordon Gee? Bill Nye? Donald Duck?

And this universal truism was reaffirmed when the 93-year-old former justice took the stage before a giant gathering of liberal lawyers, jurists, academics, and law students, and patiently told them how wrong they are about DNA and the Fourth Amendment.

This is what happens when you invite Republicans to speak…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Justice Stevens Address: Guys Who Wear Bow Ties…”

Not impressed.

* A case of Supreme Court techciting gone wild: What happens when your book is cited in a SCOTUS opinion, but to express an opinion you’ve never endorsed before? A whole lot of irony. [New York Times]

* The Justice Department is dropping its appeal over a federal order that would allow promiscuous prosti-tots minors to access the morning-after pill. Hooray, over-the-counter emergency contraception for all! [CNN]

* The National Law Journal just released the most recent edition of the NLJ 350. As we saw in the Am Law 100 and 200, “economic wariness” was pervasive throughout Biglaw in 2012. [National Law Journal]

* More women are “bringing home the bacon,” but it’s the cheap store brand because they can’t afford better. It’s been 50 years since the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, and women are still earning less money than men. [ABC News]

* When it came time for the ABA to change the time frame for law schools to submit jobs data, it pushed the decision back till August. Adopting the wait-and-see method already, huh? [ABA Journal]

* Jury selection has begun in the Trayvon Martin murder trial, where the verdict will hinge upon George Zimmerman’s credibility. It’s like we’re learning about trials for the first time, you guys. [Bloomberg]

* Washington is facing an unexpected issue with its new marijuana laws: training all the drug-sniffing dogs not to go crazy over pot. [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Maryland v. King, but with more Betty Draper. [Eff Yeah SCOTUS]

* The International Trade Commission has banned the importation of older iPhones and iPads for patent infringement based on a standard-essential patent. Don’t know what that means? Well, it’s kind of a big deal. [FOSS Patents]

* A federal judge likens herself to the Hulk because she lengthens sentences over the objections of prosecutors. When we first wrote about Judge Rose, Staci felt the one Senator voting against her confirmation needed a good reason. This is that reason. [Des Moines Register]

* Student trolls law professor to get grades posted before she can finish the professor’s book. The race is on! [Josh Blackman's Blog]

* As previously mentioned, THE Ohio State University President Gordon Gee was in hot water. Now he’s been s**tcanned retiring. Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino declared Gee a “pompous ass.” One tipster noted, “Pitino Rick is an expert on the subject of pompous. Restaurant Sex too.” [CBS Sports]

* Lots of lawyers are former debaters. If you are looking to give back, there’s a new organization trying to raise money for high school debate in Kalamazoo. I mention this partly because I care about the cause, but mostly because I like writing Kalamazoo. [Go Fund Me]

* After reviewing the mindblowingly crazy BARBRI lecturer vid yesterday, Themis sent us a couple of their bar prep vids. Enjoy after the jump…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Non-Sequiturs: 06.05.13″

Justice Kennedy announced the majority opinion in a long anticipated case today. It was met with a blistering dissent by Justice Scalia.

Unfortunately for most Court watchers, it was not the opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas, the latest in the Court’s attempts to resolve whether affirmative action in higher education is constitutional. Some observers expressed annoyance.

Instead, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Maryland v. King, which Justice Alito previously identified as potentially the most important law enforcement decision in decades. The Court held that the police can take your DNA any time you’ve been arrested for a “serious” crime.

But the real fun was in the dissent….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The Police Can Take Your DNA Now, and Justice Scalia Doesn’t Like It”

Imagine you’re in a negotiation to buy a used car. You use the Blue Book — the Kelley Blue Book, not the legal Bluebook — to set the starting point on the price. You do your research at home based on the blue book that’s online, which says the starting point for the car you want is $10,000.

Then, when you get to the used car dealer, you find out that they have a new blue book, one that just came out that day. It says that the starting point for the car you want is really $12,000.

You’d probably be annoyed, maybe angry. The whole starting point for your conversation about the price of the car changed.

Yet, the dealer could tell you, and you could still agree with him to pay any amount you’d like for the car. The starting point doesn’t necessarily set the ending point.

This was, basically, the situation the Supreme Court was called in to referee in this morning’s oral argument in Peugh v. United States….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Today at the Supreme Court: Moving The Starting Point”