Tuesday, 15 June 2004

More on the standing issue in Newdow

Eugene Volokh gives the legalist’s reasoning as to why the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Newdow v. Elk Grove; I still believe the original plan of the justices who voted for cert was to also reach a substantive conclusion on the constitutionality of the pledge requirement (perhaps in line with Thomas’ concurrence), but Scalia’s recusal threw a wrench in the works of that happening.

Meanwhile, Alex Knapp agrees with Dahlia Lithwick that the more important issue settled in the case may relate to the majority’s newfound respect for the principle of federalism, at least in the area of family law.

# By Chris Lawrence @ 7:00 pm CDT [Permalink] « (0)
Manual TrackBack URL for this entry: https://blog.lordsutch.com/tb.cgi/1692
Tags: Law, Politics
 

2 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.
[Permalink] 1. Alex Knapp wrote @ Wed, 16 Jun 2004, 9:09 am CDT:

Remember, it only takes 4 to grant cert. Those 4 were no doubt Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O’Connor…

 
[Permalink] 2. Chris Lawrence wrote @ Fri, 18 Jun 2004, 11:17 am CDT:

Indeed, that’s the cert lineup I hypothesized in comments at Xrlq’s place. Somehow I don’t see the other justices being all that worried about a circuit split (indeed, I don’t think there was technically a circuit split, just the 9th Circuit ruling).

 
Comments are now closed on this post.

Like what you’re reading?

To view other posts at Signifying Nothing, please visit the BlogFront.

Random Thoughts…

Signifying Nothing formerly featured the stylings of Brock Sides, a left-leaning philosopher turned network administrator currently residing in Memphis, Tennessee who now blogs at Battlepanda, and Robert Prather, a libertarian-leaning conservative economist and occasional contributor at OTB.

Syndication Feeds

Recently… ↓