STRANGER THINGS AT SCOTUS | Why Justices Fear Stats | Alito’s Halloween-aversary
October 31, 2017
STRANGER THINGS
|Yesterday, the justices got pretty nit-picky during oral arguments about a death row inmate having adequate resources to challenges his sentence. The case could now hinge on the semantics of two similar phrases that spell out federal law requirements for how much money death row inmates are entitled to for investigators and experts. In essence, the argument boiled down to the difference in meaning between “reasonably necessary” and “substantial need.”
THIS IS THRILLER
|The justices are no good at statistics and that’s very bad for the upcoming decision in the Gill v. Whitford case. In The Washington Post, Anthony Fowler explains that during the Gill arguments, the Supreme Court categorically dismissed relevant quantitative evidence — and not for the first time. Spooky, no?
MONSTER MASH
|NPR’s Nina Totenberg reports on the 200th anniversary celebration of Harvard Law School which was well-attended by Supreme Court justices. Six current and former Supremes attended the event and reflected on their law school days. Hear Totenberg’s story and listen to audio of the justices from that panel.
TOP-ED
|In The New York Times, Dahlia Lithwick and Stephen Vladeck opine that the myth of judicial “resistance” poses a serious and dangerous threat to the independence of our judiciary in general. They write, “The as-yet small but influential number of activist critics seeking to destabilize and undermine an independent judicial branch are well aware that judges called out for fealty to ‘the resistance’ don’t write op-eds and don’t tweet back. But they should stop their attack before their argument goes mainstream. Large-scale assaults on judicial integrity are so pernicious precisely because judicial integrity demands no response. And although we might expect these kinds of broadsides from those who see no value in the rule of law and in checks and balances, dismissing every jurist with whom you have a disagreement as an unhinged partisan represents unhinged partisanship. Lawyers, above all, should understand that.”
BLACK MAGIC WOMAN
|“Monday, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY blocked the bulk of PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S ban on transgender military service, ruling that the policy likely violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.” Mark Joseph Stern with Slate reports on the judge’s action in which she called the trans troops ban “inexplicable” and “unjustified.”
HALLOWEEN IN SCOTUS HISTORY
|On this day in 2005, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH nominated SAMUEL ALITO to succeed retired JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR on the U.S. Supreme Court. POLITICO’s Andrew Glass reflects on the anniversary of the nomination and subsequent confirmation of Justice Alito.
OTHER NEWS
Trump Appeals Court Pick Declared 'Not Qualified' By American Bar Association Committee
The Washington Post“For the second time this year, the American Bar Association (ABA) committee that vets federal judicial nominees has come out publicly against a Trump administration choice for a judgeship, declaring Leonard Steven Grasz “not qualified” to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.”
The Senate Is About To Confirm A Frenzy Of Conservative Judges
The Huffington Post“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is finally giving conservative groups what they want: a huge push on judicial confirmations. McConnell has teed up votes this week on four of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees. That’s an incredible amount of activity on judges in one week. For some comparison, former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) typically scheduled a vote on one nominee per week, at most.”