THE SUPREME SUPREME COURT

UPDATE: In our continuing effort to stay on top of the most important news from the Big Apple 🍎, comes this startling report: 

Six unelected people, cloistered away from the public, with lifetime tenure and physical protection have in a space of a few days upended American Society. 

The Supreme Court just

1) Held that being of color in the US is no big deal. There are no disadvantages to being black or any other minority such that  a student's race should not be considered by colleges. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.  The opinion notes "with distinct approval" the formerly discredited comments of a notable sports tout that none of the Judges in the REGIB reading this (and most do) will know because their parents were in diapers when Jimmy the Greek Synder said this: 

The decision did all but say "some of our best friends are black...:

NB: Philosophically Rumpole agrees with the proposition that two wrongs do not make a right and considering race in college admissions has inherent philosophical problems. BUT we also note that racism still pervades US society on a scale that does not allow courts and legislatures to turn a blind eye and announced that they are "Shocked! Shocked that there is gambling    racism going on in these premises..." 

2) Held that Gay people have less rights than they might think they have. Businesses can discriminate against a customer on the basis of their sexual orientation. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

Again, Rumpole philosophically agrees a business has a right to have signs that say "We do not serve Jews, Judges, or Armenian people" because we believe in the sanctity of property rights.  But under that premise, are we prepared to return to a society separated by race?

And in that vein, the Court announced a willingness to reexamine Brown vs. Board of Education: "What's exactly wrong if people are separate but equal?  We have three separate but equal branches of government. Why can't we have separate but equal education? "  Thomas, J, concurring in the grant of Certiorari. 

The Court also announced a grant of Cert on the issue of whether a domestic violence restraining order constitutionally can prohibit someone from possessing a firearm. First, we must all agree what we need in this country is more guns in the hands of angry and unstable people. Second, since the framers were not DV PC and didn't spend a lot of time discussing domestic violence restraining orders, the court will most certainly rule that DV restraining orders cannot stop people from carrying firearms. 

We really mean this. Follow us on this quick legal journey (judges, ask a PD to help you out on the law)

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022) Justice Thomas, writing on behalf of school gunmen everywhere, and the majority, wrote: 

We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's “unqualified command.”

Earlier this year, in US v. Rahimi, the 5th Circuit struck down the constitutionality of a law prohibiting possession of a firearm when Rahimi, a violent drug dealer, was served with a domestic violence restraining order. Citing the Bruen decision, the 5th Circuit Judges, reveling in legal etoufee wrote such gems as "our ancestors would have never accepted the law on domestic violence restraining orders..."  (because they f'ing beat their slaves Rumpole notes). 

So- unless the current crop of Judges on the supreme court uncover some discussions between Jefferson and Adams on DV restraining orders: 

Adams: "Tom, when are you going to stop beating your wife?"

Jefferson: "You should try keeping Abagail in order. She has a mouth that one..." 

the court is destined to place battered women more at risk, because lets face it, there's only so many schools a shooter can shoot up with an AR15 without turning his attention to taking pot shots at battered women, with Justices Amy Comey and Clarence "Big Man" Clemmons Thomas supplying the clips. 

FIRST MONDAY IN OCTOBER 2021

 Today is the first Monday in October, which causes certain legal wonks to nerd out on the traditional first day of the Supreme Court's term. 

First up will be the eight members on the bench, as Justice Kavanaugh may have had a few two many brewskis close up, and caught Covid and will not be in Court. However this year will see the return of in court arguments and masks. 

Up this year on the docket is Mississippi's challenge to Roe v. Wade ("y'all got it wrong"). Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization 19-1392. Interestingly, the Court last heard in person arguments 18 months ago. The case was a challenge to a Louisiana law that restricted abortions. A 5 justice majority, including Justice Ginsberg and CJ Roberts, struck down the law. A lot has changed since then. 

Our Gang. Alfalfa, Spanky, Darla, Porky and the rest.  

There is a gun case - NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, that examines the constitutionality of NY State's strict regulations on the carrying of guns outside of the home. There is a Guantanamo case about whether a detainee can get information on two CIA officers who tortured him (US v. Abu Zudaydah); and there are two death penalty cases. In US v. Tsarnaev, the Court will review the second circuit's decision tossing the death penalty in the Boston Marathon Bomber's case. In Ramiez v Collier the Court will hear the request of Texas death row inmate John Ramirez that his pastor be allowed to touch him while he is being executed. Really? This is what the Court thinks they need to devote time to? 

But it all comes down to Mississippi and the challenge to Roe. That is what the 2021- 2022 term will be forever known for. 

And we will be watching. 

SUPREME COURT SPECIALISTS

The NY Times covers the specialty practice of the Supreme Court. The title of the post links to the article.

In 2000, John Roberts now Chief Justice, then a litigator, sneered at the practice of Supreme Court specialists cold calling lawyers who had certiorari granted and offering their assistance:

“If I’m going to have heart bypass surgery, I wouldn’t go to the surgeon who calls me up, I’d look for the guy who’s too busy for that.” Roberts said.

It is now even more common for lawyers to solicit cases accepted for argument.

How is it that we can't just waltz into the jail and offer to represent the accused drug dealer on his 2 million dollar forfeiture case without risking sanctions by the bar, but these snooty Supreme Court hacks get away with whoring themselves out for the glory of doing battle with Judge Scalia?

SUICIDE POOL

A brutal day in the suicide pool with Rumpole (Bills) Nick Basso ( Saints ) Juan Gonzalez (49ers) Cary Clennon (Bengals) DOM (Cowpokes who are now 1-3) all taking a loss. Indeed the only people who won took the Colts, and that game was up for grabs until late in the 4th quarter.

Plea D, Freeman, Miguel De La O, BTDT and Michael Feiler still survive. Mr. Feiler seems like a team of destiny based on his narrow escape a few weeks ago.

FIRST MONDAY IN OCTOBER : 2010 EDITION

Baby Lollipops update: We received this urgent email from a loyal reader:

Rumpole: Breaking news at the sentencing phase hearing for the woman accused of killing her child: Judge Ward- yes you read that right- Judge Ward has momentarily crippled the State's ability to proceed. The case is set before Judge Reemeberto Diaz, and as the case began, veteran and grizzled homicide prosecutor Susan Dannely was momentarily stunned when Judge Ward ordered two thirds of her prosecution team to her courtroom regardless of the fact that they were beginning the delicate sentencing phase portion of the case. As the PD piled motion upon motion to the State, Dannely was reduced to pleading for "judicial intervention" to help recoup her prosecutors.

Rumpole says: This highlights a more important issue: the ridiculous nature of judges who order attorneys to their courtroom without regard for what the attorney is otherwise engaged in. And having been in private practice, Judge Ward should know better. But she is far from the only judge who acts as if their cases are the only cases that count.

It's the First Monday in October, and you all know what that means:

Yes, they now change the soup menus in Au Bon Pain to reflect the Fall Harvest, but it is also the opening session of the United States Supreme Court.

Nick Allard of Politico has this Op Ed piece: "Mr. Chief Justice Open These Doors."

Because the great bronze door entrance to the Court, above which is chiseled in stone these words: "Equal Justice Under The Law", remain locked as the justices quiver in the face of terrorist threats.

Mr. Allred writes:

The diplomat George Kennan, in his famous 1946 “long telegram” from Moscow, which issued a stern warning about Soviet aggression, cautioned that the greatest danger that can befall a free society, in coping with foes who seek to destroy us and our way of life, is to allow ourselves to become like them.

For all of you Supreme Court groupies, the court today will hear Abbott v. US/ Gould v. US, which examines the fascinating question about the "except clause" of 18 USC 924(c). For those of you who practice federal criminal defense, the questions surrounding the 924(c) count, with it's 5 year consecutive sentence for possession of a firearm during a criminal offense, is an important one.

For the rest of us, we are just looking forward to the new soups.

See you in court.

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

BREAKING NEWS .... OBAMA TO NOMINATE KAGAN

On Friday it was our Governor naming Joe Fernandez to a Circuit Court seat. And today, President Obama will nominate Elena Kagan at the nation's 112th justice. Kagan is currently the Solicitor General of the US.

Assuming Kagan wins confirmation, she will be the lone justice among the nine that did not sit on the Federal bench. In fact, she will be the first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience. (Name the last one?)

Kagan is 50 years old and a past Dean of Harvard Law School. She earned degrees from Princeton, Oxford and Harvard. She clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was the last Solicitor General to go from that position to the Supreme Court. If confirmed, every justice on the court will have studied law at either Harvard or Yale.

CAPTAIN OUT .....

CARS AND THE CONSTITUTION

UPDATE!!! The Captain has reliably informed us that Miami Judges Kevin Emas and Gil Freeman have both made the cut and their names are among 6 being sent to Governor Crist for consideration as Florida's next Supreme Court Justice. Congrats to both. 

CARS AND THE CONSTITUTION:

If we ever lose the bill of rights completely, it will be in a case involving a car. I  don't know why the Supreme Court has it in for people who own and drive cars, but ever since Carroll v. US in 1925, when the court held that people in cars have less expectation of privacy, the court has systematically stripped the protections of the Bill of Rights when it comes to people in motor vehicles. 

Today (Tuesday) the Court hears argument in Arizona v. Johnson,  (SCOTUS WIKI Link) in which the question presented is whether an officer who doesn't like the way a car looks can arrest the occupants and send them directly to prison without benefit of trial?  Not really. But almost. The question in the case is whether an officer who admittedly does not have probable cause or even reasonable suspicion can conduct a  " Terry pat-down search" of a vehicle passenger when the officer believes that the officer’s safety or that of the public may be at risk? 

Put another way- does an officer's unfounded suspicions or fears allow him or her to perform a Terry Search on someone who has done nothing wrong and is just a passenger in a car? 

Put another way- just how far can irrational fear and unfounded suspicion go in eroding the Bill of Rights? 

Put another way- Just what can't the police do to someone who has the temerity to ride in a car? 

We'll be following the oral argument.

Hottest Supreme Court Rumor (what? You thought we only knew about the REGJB?) 

Justice David Soutter is so "unsuited" for life in Washington, and so unhappy about working on the court that the rumor amongst the regulars at the Old Ebbitt Grill  is that Souter  can barely  wait until Obama becomes President so he can retire and return to his Cabin in New Hampshire.  Several years ago Souter was mugged and beaten up pretty badly while jogging in DC.  He is the first out of town when the court is not in session, and he has made several statements in the past that he would retire as soon as a democrat was elected president. 

Who's first out: Souter or 87 year old Justice Stevens? 

Who's brushing off their resume for an appointment to the S Ct? Anyone in South Florida? Lots of very interesting and brilliant Judges on the 7th Circuit (Illinois) including Judges Posner and Eastbrook. As  a former law professor in Chicago, Obama must have more than a passing familiarity with Posner and Eastbrook. 

 Posner is a prolific author (40+ books)  with very persuasive views on the economic  theory of law.  Posner was appointed by President Reagan and has been called the "greatest living jurist in the United States." Posner graduated first in his class from "Harvahd Law."  He was president of the law review and clerked for Brennan on the Supreme court in 1962-63.  He is known to be  a supporter of Roe.  He is 68 years old and is a renowned Blogger!!!! Click here.  

Posner's November 30, 2008 post on the future of conservatism is a must read. 

Hottest rumor in the REGJB? Judge Jerald Bagley wants to add the title "Chief" to "Judge".  With Judge Ivan Fernandez also seeking the top spot, we would be well served if either of these two popular and qualified jurists took over for Judge Farina. 

See You In Court. 

It was 71 degrees at 6:00 AM.  A veritable heat wave for Florida today.  

FIRST MONDAY IN OCTOBER

UPDATE: First we fixed the links in the post. Sorry for the problems. The links work. 

Second, why not take a flyer on the over 47 tonight? 50 Tobins on the over. Just for fun. Minnesota (don't cha know)  at the Big Easy.

OYEZ OYEZ The US Supreme Court is in session,   just in time to steal another election if the Republicans need a little boost on November 5. 

The title links to the SCOTUS Blog and the Oyez links to the Court itself. 

On Tuesday the Court hears argument on two criminal law cases:

Herring v. US, on the issue of whether the exclusionary rule applies to evidence seized based on erroneous information;

and  Arizona v. Gant, on whether under New York v. Belton the police can conduct a warrantless search of an automobile if the arrested occupant poses no threat to officer safety or destruction of evidence.

NORTH OF THE BORDER HI-JINKS. 

It's been more than a week since a Judge in Broward did something "un-judge" like. Well, the wait is over. Personally offended that one of his "boyz" was beaten at the polls,  chief Judge Vic Tobin has been working the phone lines,  trying to get Judge Robert Andrews, who is going to be retiring due to health reasons, to retire early so Tobin can get Judge Dijols  appointed. 

Andrews refused to retire early. Tobin denied the report to the Herald calling Andrews "not well." Andrews responded by saying he didn't know Pedro "from Adam's house cat." 

Now that's what we've all come to expect by our distinguished Judges from Broward. A good ole fashioned fight, replete with political promises and intrigue. Perhaps Tobin is a bit concerned that if all these Judges keep losing at the polls, his support as head honcho could evaporate faster than you can say "Dale Ross." However, it's nice to know Vic Tobin has Governor Charlie Crist in his vest pocket. Let him out for air once in  awhile, and with a little sunlight, food and water, he could grow into something big.

Now here is apparently one problem Judge Tobin did not anticipate: Mardi Levey-Cohen Palin has announced that if Judge Dijols is appointed, she will in fact serve his term. (readers following the election mess know that currently Levey-Cohen is not on the ballot and that a vote for Dijols is a vote for her.) What a mess!.

Miami Dade practice tip:

On the second and third Mondays in October the Hialeah Branch Court serves free pastelitos and cuban coffee to the first thirty lawyers who file NOAs. 

See You In Court, not expecting much help from the nifty nine. 

30 YEARS AT THE SUPREME COURT

NY TIMES Reporter Linda Greenhouse is retiring after covering the Supreme Court for 30 years, Click on the title of the post to read the article. 

PENNY BRILL WAS RIGHT!!!

That is the current  headline on David Ranck's blog. We never knew anyone said she was wrong. Indeed, much to our chagrin, whenever we are in court going against her she usually has the correct law supporting her proposition. 

In any event, some think this is important. So click on this link HERE

and read all about  the pathos, the internecine intrigue, and everything else SAO from an insider. 

For those of you out of the loop, Penny Brill is an ASA who works in the office's legal division. She's one of the ones who come to court and tell the judge the law that they should know, but obviously don't. (In fairness to our robed readers, it's awfully hard to read an FLW on a golf cart or at a table at the Forge.)

"BACK" TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT

In a highly anticipated case (Maryland v. Paulino, Supreme Court Docket# 07-266)
involving the scope of a search incident to arrest and the Fourth Amendment, Supreme Court scholars are anxiously watching to see which lawyer will be achieve fame and enter legal history by being the first lawyer ever to use the words “buttocks” , “ass cheeks”, and “ass cracks” in a public legal argument with Justices Scalia and Thomas.

The information is on the Supreme Court blog HERE
(scroll down to the petitions for cert on 11/15/07)

The Defendant testified at the suppression hearing:

[Mr. Paulino]: They had searched me in my pockets, didn’t find nothing, and
eventually, they came to the subject where – in my report, it states that the
officer said, Mr. Paulino, why is your butt cheeks squeezed? And in further
response, I said nothing. He said it again, and another officers come behind
with gloves and pulled my pants down and went in my ass. Well, my cheeks.
Sorry about that.

The Maryland Court framed the issue this way:

Did the search of Petitioner, which involved an officer putting on
plastic gloves and spreading the cheek s of Petitioner’s buttocks to reveal drugs
which were not visible before that time, violate the Fourth Amendment, when
the search was con ducted in the parking lot of a car wash in the presence of
individuals other than the searching officer?

This case affects Miami in many ways. Beyond the legion of leering police officers just waiting for permission to legally shove their hands downs the backsides of models sashaying down Ocean Drive, the question remains whether the “hip/hop” fashion of wearing pants below the waist is constitutionally significant?

From the Maryland Appellate Court:

It remains un-clear whether Paulino ’s pants were below his waist as a result of his
removal from the vehicle in the course of the arrest, or, whether Paulino intentionally wore his pants below his waist as a part of a fad. Even if Paulino intentionally wore his pants below his waist and his undergarments were exposed , we conclude that because Paulino’s pants were below his waist he retained, nevertheless, a Fourth Amendment right to privacy in his person.


Will Justice Souter and his clerks stroll down the hallowed hallways of the Supreme Court with their pants hanging fashionably low, shouting out a “Yo! My Dog” to Chief Justice Roberts as they pass him by?

Will Miami lawyers now be able to recreate the search of their fetching clients in the private confines of their offices without fearing Bar reprisals?

There’s no “backing” away from this controversy. This case will not fall between the “cracks”. Which Supreme Court Justice will be “ass”igned the opinion?

Somehow, this whole Fourth Amendment issue appeals to our own prurient interests. See, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

See You In Court, reading the latest cases from the Supreme Court so we don't get caught "behind" the new changes in the law.

FIRST MONDAY IN OCTOBER

Today is the first Monday in October, and you know what that means.

Well for President Bush Monday means fried chicken and mashed potatoes, but for the rest of the country who cares, the First Monday in October means the beginning of the new term for the Supreme Court.

The Robert’s court finds itself as the most divided court in history with four justices in the conservative bloc, 4 justices in the liberal bloc, and moderate conservative Anthony Kennedy in the unlikely position as the sole voice of what the law in America means.

One wonders what Roberts, with the most divisive supreme court term in history behind him, would say now about his confirmation testimony in which he said- with a straight face- that he had no ideological agenda to pursue and viewed his job as an umpire-“ just calling balls and strikes as I see em.”

Last term saw the Court eroding the rights defendants have under habeas corpus, and for the first time since Brown v. Board of Education, the court came down on the side of school segregation, ordering Seattle and Kentucky to stop their school integration program.

Roberts came to the job promising to bring consensus and trying to avoid divisive 5-4 opinions. He currently leads a court that has turned the formerly mild John Paul Stevens into the great dissenter.

The Court’s decision in Bowles v. Russell closing the courthouse doors to a prisoner, who following a federal judge’s instructions filed a notice of appeal on the 17th day after a decision, when the law only gave him 14 days, prompted this outburst from Justice Souter:“it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way.” He added, “There is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch.”


And this was Steven’s opening paragraph of his dissent in the desegregation cases:

There is a cruel irony in THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S reliance on our decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 (1955). The first sentence in the concluding paragraph of his opinion states: "Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin." Ante, at 40. This sentence reminds me of Anatole Frances observation: " [T]he majestic equality of the la[w], forbid[s] rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." THE CHIEF JUSTICE fails to note that it was only black schoolchildren who were so ordered; indeed, the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black schools. In this and other ways, THE CHIEF JUSTICE rewrites the history of one of this Court's most important decisions.


We watch the opening of the new term with the suspicion that four ideologues have set out on a course to re-write many more of the Court’s most important decisions in a manner that fits into their philosophy. What they fail to recognize is that by ignoring the importance of precedence, they are turning the court into a political pendulum, and what they do now is destined to be un-done by the opposite political philosophy when the court, some time in the future, has a different majority with different beliefs. In the end it is the majesty of the law which suffers through the diminishment of legal rationale, replaced by partisan argument of ipse dixit reasoning.


The 11th Circuit Historical Society is at it again!!!!

You just can’t keep these wild guys quiet. Its party party party all the time. This time it is tomorrow, Tuesday October 2, 2007 at 6:30 PM., at their regular hangout at the Historical Museum across the street from the Civil Courthouse at 101 West Flagler Street. The topic tomorrow is the book written by retired Circuit Court Judge Seymour Gelber: "On Behalf of Children - A History of Judicial Activism in the Dade County Juvenile Court." Call 305.375.1619 or 305.375.1492 to RSVP with Judge Scott Silverman and his staff.


And finally, comes this lengthy email from Rick Freedman who tirelessly devotes his time to this court appointment mess:


Beginning Monday, October 1, 2007, there will be major changes taking place in the Court Appointed Counsel system.

The Offices of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel can begin operation on October 1, 2007. Our Regional Director, Joe George has not found office space, nor has he hired the approximately 48 employees (attorneys and staff) and therefore he will not be open for business on Monday (nor should he be, adds Rumpole. Ever.). That means the conflicts should continue to flow at the same rate until Mr. George opens his office. This could occur as late as December 31, 2007. (or perhaps the first of never. Rumpole)

Because of some quirky language in the bill, the AOC will still maintain the Registry and Judge Farina as the Chief Judge will still be responsible for overseeing the Registry. The Screening Committee will continue to function, with Gene Zenobi as Chair, and the Fee Review Committee will continue with David S. Markus as Chair. Having said that, the AOC will NOT be responsible for the distribution of the conflict cases. They have been doing this job effectively for the past 39 months. Now that responsibility shifts to the Clerk of the Court and Harvey Ruvin. (Rumpole says, oh this oughtta be good. Given their efficiency for losing files, lets see how quickly the clerks grind the court appointment system down to the efficiency of .....well.....the clerk's office. People will wait for months to get lawyers appointed, and while they're at it they should make the judges run up and down the hallways of the ninth floor the way we do to get files. I can see it now: "Dear Judge, in order to have the clerk appoint an attorney on your case, please go to the ninth floor, wait in the public line until you get to the window. Then the clerk will give you a number. Walk that number down to the attorney's room and wait for the clerk. That clerk will then call out numbers. When your number is called, you will be given a password. Then walk back to the original line, wait in line, and go to the window and give the clerk the password. The clerk should enter the password in the computer to give you a name, but in all likelihood, the clerk will tell you the system is down, and to come back in an hour. Hope this makes your court appointment experience an enjoyable one. Sincerely, Harvey Ruvin, clerk of the everlasting lines and circuit court."

On Monday, each in court Calendar Clerk will have software on their computers that will allow them to see the Registry and whose name is next on the appointment wheel. When a conflict is filed by the Public Defender's Office, the in court clerk will be directed by the Circuit Court Judge to assign the case to the next attorney on the list. The software has been tested to make sure that multiple court clerks operating in different courtrooms can pull this off all at the same time; (without the same attorney getting all the appointments).

Each Judge will determine the procedure for assigning the cases, with three possible alternatives: (Rumpole notes, just what our dear robed readers need, more decisions to complicate their lives and make them late for lunch at the club.)

1. The Calendar Clerk pulls up the next name and the attorney is immediately assigned to the case. The judge signs the appointment order and the appointment package is mailed to the attorney. If the attorney does not want the case, it becomes their responsibility to put it back on the calendar and WITHDRAW from the case.

2. The judge passes the case and asks his JA to attempt a phone call to the next name on the list. If the attorney is contacted, the JA can tell the judge the answer before the end of the calendar.

3. The judge indicates that the case will print out the next day and in the interim, the JA will contact the attorney that is next on the list to see if they want the case.

Therefore, if the Judge chooses option one, you will have NO choice, you will be appointed to the case. If you want out, you must affirmatively take action to do so. Email is also being considered as a way to communicate quickly that a case has been assign to you. Those in charge understand that this system is a work in progress and we expect there to be much change during the next three months.


Rumpole says, we will believe it when we see it.

See You In Court, not getting court appointments.

CRAZY DEAD

The Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision today (Thursday) held that the state cannot execute a prisoner if s/he is insane.

KILL EM ALL

The court did not address the issue of the insanity of a government executing its own citizens.

Here are some logical conclusions from the opinion:

1) The state's interest in the mental health of one of its citizens becomes critical not before the time of the murder (when innocent life could be saved) - but only after a conviction and sentence of death. It is at that point that the state must spend time and money on physicians to treat a citizen's mental illness so that the citizen may be restore to sanity......So the State may then kill that citizen.

2) It is meaningless to execute a defendant who does not understand s/he is being punished.

3) It is cruel and unusual to execute someone who does not realize (perhaps blissfully?) they are being put to death. However, it is not cruel and unusual to otherwise execute someone. In other words, it is cruel and unusual to die if you don't realize you're about to die. But so long as you sit in an 8X8 cage for years fully aware and pondering your impending death, then the 8th Amendment is not violated.

4) There is no truth to the rumor that Scalia and Thomas dissent contains the phrase "we are diminished by the continuing life of any individual that deserves to be executed." That was just a vicious rumour started in the Supreme Court's canteen.

Thomas's dissent: The dissent focused on the impropriety of granting a successive writ. Regarding the issue of raising insanity (addressing the problem of a prisoner becoming insane after the first writ was denied) , Thomas wrote that the solution was for all prisoners to preserve the insanity issue in the first writ, thus allowing them to raise it in a successive writ if the issue became ripe.

Who gave this man a license to practice law?
Putting aside the ironic lunacy of his reasoning, does he have any idea what his solution says to the issue of only raising claims in legal pleadings that apply? And since Thomas's proposal would allow a person to file a successive writ if they preserved the insanity issue in the first writ, why not just allow successive writs when the issue of insanity becomes ripe, without requiring lawyers to file false pleadings on behalf of clients under sentence of death? If you read the opinion, this part of the dissent is phrased in the context of what is called "A Ford issue."

Justice Scalia, ever eloquent in dissent had this to say "Don't mess with Texas."

So dear reader, the Supreme Court closed its term today with a number of decisions.
The court resurrected with approval Plessy v. Ferguson ("seperate but equal", circa 1896) in striking down a Seattle school district's consideration of race when assigning children to school.
"Brown blows and the Plessy court had it right" said Justice Thomas.

And while an innocent man's appeal should be denied for lack of jurisdiction if the Judge gives him wrong advice on how long he has to file the appeal, a guilty man cannot be executed if during his long stay in an 8X8 cage 23 hours a day, he happens to lose his mind.

This is our Supreme Court, in all its conservative glory.

See you in court, winning trials and avoiding appeals.

PS: Friday we bid a fond fairwell to Judge Cristina Shuminer, who like so many other robed readers of late, heads off to the more lucrative land of televsion. We hardly had a chance to get to know Judge Shuminer before she left, but by all accounts she will be missed. We wish her well.