When a lower court used the wrong legal standard, when should the justices remand to apply the right one versus applying it themselves? That was the key dispute in last Thursday's ruling in Thornell
Clearly the specter of the Extremes choosing to substitute itself for the trier of fact was highlighted in Alito's decision in Alexander. The question then became "is this because it was an elections issue and this court feels states can do whatever the hell they want about running their own elections." In other words, was it limited to this kind of "balance of power" issue. Sounds like the Thornell case suggests not.
But it isn't clear to me where the Extremes would send the remand. If to the Ninth Circuit, doesn't that make IT need to decide whether the "aggregating conditions" would have swayed a jury despite ineffective counsel? Or would the Ninth Circuit order a new trial, this time with one hopes effective counsel, to see what a jury would actually decide?
Was the appeal based on the guilty verdict itself or just the death penalty phase?
Totally fair question. It's a habeas petition where the ineffectiveness claim related to sentencing, so the question is whether Jones had carried his burden to have the federal courts order Arizona to give him a new sentencing hearing. That would've been what the Ninth Circuit (or the district court) would have been asked to decide on remand.
Really enjoying your knowledgeable discourse. Strange to consider it entertaining but that’s how it feels. I guess I’m just pleased that I can follow it.
Is it possible the light Court calendar is intentional so they can expeditiously handle any election issues we will see this year? There’s already a drumbeat that President Trump should appeal the NY verdict directly to SCOTUS. And my gut is telling me that this won’t be the only case requiring review before November…
I have a hard time seeing how. Late-breaking election cases wouldn't usually get arguments, but would come to the Court as emergency applications. And even assuming that there are one or even two that warrant special treatment, that really doesn't explain how few grants there are for the upcoming term...
Thornell shows, again, how bloodthirsty the conservative justices are in death penalty cases, and also shows, again, the penchant Alito and Thimas have for gory crime scene detail porn.
The Supreme Court started to provide notice of revisions to opinions and orders, providing a separate column on the opinion pages with the revision date and copy of the updated opinion with the revisions highlighted.
This term they generally stopped doing this apparently because they sped up the preliminary bound copy of the opinion. When that was accomplished, the link to the opinion (at the bottom) noted any revisions. For some reason, however, a few revisions were still noted on the opinion page though no longer with the old separate column format. The NRA opinion, for instance, now has a revision.
Indeed, the Court (finally) started providing electronic access to revisions a few years ago, and they're *still* doing so. When a revision has been made either before the preliminary part is posted or after, it's usually reflected in a note at the *end* of the preliminary part excerpt.
How relevant do you think this is in Trump v. United States? If they set a boundary of immunity (for e.g., outer-perimeter or Article II core presidential duties), do you think they would apply it themselves or remand to district court? If the traditional course of action would be to remand, what does it mean for the rule of law if the Court applies the rule themself without remand simply because it is an exigent circumstance, with time being of the essence (this question does assume that they would recognize an interest in expediency)?
Your Harvard Law Review article is, unsurprisingly, excellent. From your lips to the 9 demigods’ ears.
Thank you!!
Clearly the specter of the Extremes choosing to substitute itself for the trier of fact was highlighted in Alito's decision in Alexander. The question then became "is this because it was an elections issue and this court feels states can do whatever the hell they want about running their own elections." In other words, was it limited to this kind of "balance of power" issue. Sounds like the Thornell case suggests not.
But it isn't clear to me where the Extremes would send the remand. If to the Ninth Circuit, doesn't that make IT need to decide whether the "aggregating conditions" would have swayed a jury despite ineffective counsel? Or would the Ninth Circuit order a new trial, this time with one hopes effective counsel, to see what a jury would actually decide?
Was the appeal based on the guilty verdict itself or just the death penalty phase?
Totally fair question. It's a habeas petition where the ineffectiveness claim related to sentencing, so the question is whether Jones had carried his burden to have the federal courts order Arizona to give him a new sentencing hearing. That would've been what the Ninth Circuit (or the district court) would have been asked to decide on remand.
"Ideological undertones" is a very polite way to put it.
Really enjoying your knowledgeable discourse. Strange to consider it entertaining but that’s how it feels. I guess I’m just pleased that I can follow it.
Thank you!!
Is it possible the light Court calendar is intentional so they can expeditiously handle any election issues we will see this year? There’s already a drumbeat that President Trump should appeal the NY verdict directly to SCOTUS. And my gut is telling me that this won’t be the only case requiring review before November…
I have a hard time seeing how. Late-breaking election cases wouldn't usually get arguments, but would come to the Court as emergency applications. And even assuming that there are one or even two that warrant special treatment, that really doesn't explain how few grants there are for the upcoming term...
Thornell shows, again, how bloodthirsty the conservative justices are in death penalty cases, and also shows, again, the penchant Alito and Thimas have for gory crime scene detail porn.
A SCOTUS footnote.
The Supreme Court started to provide notice of revisions to opinions and orders, providing a separate column on the opinion pages with the revision date and copy of the updated opinion with the revisions highlighted.
This term they generally stopped doing this apparently because they sped up the preliminary bound copy of the opinion. When that was accomplished, the link to the opinion (at the bottom) noted any revisions. For some reason, however, a few revisions were still noted on the opinion page though no longer with the old separate column format. The NRA opinion, for instance, now has a revision.
Indeed, the Court (finally) started providing electronic access to revisions a few years ago, and they're *still* doing so. When a revision has been made either before the preliminary part is posted or after, it's usually reflected in a note at the *end* of the preliminary part excerpt.
How relevant do you think this is in Trump v. United States? If they set a boundary of immunity (for e.g., outer-perimeter or Article II core presidential duties), do you think they would apply it themselves or remand to district court? If the traditional course of action would be to remand, what does it mean for the rule of law if the Court applies the rule themself without remand simply because it is an exigent circumstance, with time being of the essence (this question does assume that they would recognize an interest in expediency)?