PDA

View Full Version : Confusing SCOTUS ruling


Apocalypsenerd
05-08-2010, 4:50 PM
So I'm messing around reading some of the SCOTUS rulings. I read one called Salazar vs. Buono which is a separation of church and state case.

It looked like a 5-4 ruling but it wasn't cut and dry. The majority opinion was actually 4 differing opinions with some judges agreeing with one part of one and another part of another. The dissent was 2 separate opinions as well.

Can any of you legal eagles speculate on the effect a similar McDonald ruling would have? Is it likely we'll see a similar opinion based on the moving parts of PoI or DP?

wildhawker
05-08-2010, 5:20 PM
There've been a few posts on this; it's very possible we see multiple opinions from McDonald.

POLICESTATE
05-08-2010, 5:25 PM
We'll just have to wait and see. No peeking!

Window_Seat
05-08-2010, 5:28 PM
We'll just have to wait and see. No peeking!

Do we get to telephone a friend?:(

Erik.

Cokebottle
05-08-2010, 5:36 PM
That is not unusual... and if it's a favorable ruling it's actually a very good thing, as it helps to prevent the Congresscritters from coming back with a new version of the same law that is carefully re-worded to skirt the wording of the ruling.
Example... The Federal Gun Free School Zone was struck down.
The bill was rewritten using the Commerce Clause and has yet to be challenged (perhaps there have been no "clean" arrests under the new law?).

snobord99
05-08-2010, 6:03 PM
That's known as a plurality. Basically, there's a majority and one side of the case at hand wins, but the reasoning behind the holding will differ between the opinions. Appellate cases will often be won and lost on the reasoning behind the holding so if it's, say, a 4-4-1 opinion (4 yes for reason A, 1 yes for reason B, and 4 no), then often times what you're going to need to do is cater your argument to the 1 justice that said reason B since that's the holding that could really make or break your case...

Apocalypsenerd
05-09-2010, 10:06 AM
Thanks for the answers guys. It's nice to learn a little something everyday.

press1280
05-09-2010, 10:59 AM
So I'm messing around reading some of the SCOTUS rulings. I read one called Salazar vs. Buono which is a separation of church and state case.

It looked like a 5-4 ruling but it wasn't cut and dry. The majority opinion was actually 4 differing opinions with some judges agreeing with one part of one and another part of another. The dissent was 2 separate opinions as well.

Can any of you legal eagles speculate on the effect a similar McDonald ruling would have? Is it likely we'll see a similar opinion based on the moving parts of PoI or DP?

Possibly. I read the oral argument transcript again last night and P or I got a lot of attention from Kennedy. Couple that with Thomas' interest in P or I, then all you need is 3 more and you have P or I incorporation. Of course, from oral arguments Scalia and Roberts would have none of it. Alito didn't say anything on P or I, and the liberals were somewhat interested in it.
You're correct that this could have a number of different opinions.
How would a 2A incorporated under BOTH Due Process and P or I look?