PDA

View Full Version : Ginsburg writes skilling! McDonald on Monday...


SDlocal
06-24-2010, 7:08 AM
WooHoo!

OleCuss
06-24-2010, 7:20 AM
OK, for those of us who are not so plugged-in, could you please further explain the significance?

I think this means that Alito is likely to have written McDonald vs. Chicago and Alito is a conservative?

Does this mean a much higher probability of a favorable decision? Does it imply incorporation via Substantive Due Process rather than PorI?

ScottB
06-24-2010, 7:25 AM
IIRC, Scalia appeared to favor due process over P&I. Thomas might have been a P&I supporter, but he has already authored 1 opinion. That leaves Alito - or Roberts. I don't know where either stands, but I suspect due process is more likely - unless Sotomayor, Stevens or Kennedy wrote the opinion :eek:


Tom: In answer to questions, opinions are released in reverse order of seniority and the public can go hear the announcements.

That suggests Alito or Armegeddon

SDlocal
06-24-2010, 7:32 AM
No decision until monday

Kharn
06-24-2010, 9:23 AM
Thomas writing the majority (or one of the liberals) would imply a PorI win, Alito or one of the other conservatives would imply a DP win. With one opinion outstanding and only Alito without a majority for the sitting, it is almost certain that he will be the author. Practically, the only way Alito would not write the opinion is if he is not in the majority given the SC's workload leveling tradition.

dantodd
06-24-2010, 7:12 PM
Thomas writing the majority (or one of the liberals) would imply a PorI win, Alito or one of the other conservatives would imply a DP win.

While that is the most likely scenario if Alito writes the majority there is one other possibility.

Alito could write a plurality opinion for 4 justices supporting DP and strict scrutiny while Thomas writes a concurring opinion for 2 justices with PorI and stricy scrutiny and Breyer or Stevens writes for a 3 justice concurring supporting PorI and either intermediate scrutiny or a "dual view" incorporation incorporating the 1860's OPM rather than the 1780's OPM of the second amendment.

I don't know what that would mean though obviously I would like it to mean 5 votes for PorI and 5 votes for strict would get us strict scrutiny AND a re-invigoration of the PorI clause of the 14th amendment.

BigDogatPlay
06-24-2010, 9:10 PM
The CJ was not well disposed to P or I, if I recall the oral arguments correctly.

I wouldn't count on any kind of firm statement as to level of scrutiny as that is not a question raised. OTOH, if we get dicta similar to Heller on scrutiny, that's a win in my book.