Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count [W:24] (1 Viewer)

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

digitusmedius said:

For this scumbag to imagine he can count a dead justice's opinion (that is the opinion HE thinks would have happened) that hasn't been written yet...

Click to expand...

If that's what he was arguing for then I'd agree with you that it was a "bizarre" position.

But that isn't at all what the article is saying.

I even see one of you trying to compare it to person who dies AFTER he's voted in an election.

Click to expand...

I certainly didn't bring that up, so I see no reason for you to go ranting and raving at me behind it.

If you'd actually read my response you would know that while I don't think Langhofer's position is insane or psychotic neither do I agree with it.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

year2late said:

I am with whatever the written rules say.
eace

Click to expand...

Yup, me too. There must be something written that says "After a vote is cast, but before it's made public, in the event of the death of the vote caster, this is what happens....". Whatever it is, let's do it and move on.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

soot said:

If that's what he was arguing for then I'd agree with you that it was a "bizarre" position.

But that isn't at all what the article is saying.

Click to expand...

In fact, that is exactly what the lawyer in AZ is suggesting.

I certainly didn't bring that up, so I see no reason for you to go ranting and raving at me behind it.

If you'd actually read my response you would know that while I don't think Langhofer's position is insane or psychotic neither do I agree with it.

Click to expand...

I bring it up to illustrate how unhinged the people suggesting this can get. You should know the company you keep.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

The stupidity oozing from the posts of a certain few in this thread make me want to scrub my eyes out with bleach, then make sure my doors are locked knowing that people like this are walking presumably free.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Some of this was addressed in an article I posted last week.


If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway
A deadlocked court favors Democrats...

It discusses the situation facing the court now about cases that have been heard, but are in that pipeline phase where drafts are circulated and the final opinion is worked out, which can take months. During that time, a justice can change his or her vote along the way.

"The court is not yet halfway through the 80 or 90 cases it deals with each term, but many of the most contentious have already been heard.

Normally, justices meet the week a case is argued, and vote on the outcome. So they have most likely already voted on pending cases on apportionment and affirmative action, for example.

But weeks or months can go by while the justice assigned the opinion circulates drafts. Any justice can change his or her vote at any point during that process, and often does. It’s all very hush-hush, so there is no way to tell how far along the cases Scalia heard are in the pipeline.

There is no constitutional provision, no case law and no official policy about what the court should do with cases that have been argued and voted on when a justice dies.

If the vote in a case that hasn’t yet been handed down was 5 to 4, as one might expect with these controversial rulings, can Scalia cast the deciding vote from beyond the grave to change the way America chooses every legislature in the land or integrates its public universities? "

A court that cares about its image and constitutional role will not rule in the name of a majority that counts on a dead justice, especially on the core issues of American social life. Such posthumous decisions are so unprecedented they would make Bush v. Gore look like responsible judicial behavior."

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

year2late said:

I am with whatever the written rules say.
eace

Click to expand...

There is no rule for someone divining what Scalia's opinion might have been and casting his "vote" posthumously. It's never been done and for a very good reason. No one knows what his final opinion would have been. Even if he hinted at where he was leaning in writing or in the discussions with other justices that doesn't count as being his final decision until the full opinion is written, submitted and certified by the court. People arguing for this are on dangerous ground. Scalia could sometime surprise people with his decisions so counting on these decisions going the way the rightwing thinks they should could blow up in their faces, in which case we'd no doubt see an immediate call for disregard the opinions of a dead man. It would be fun to watch, I'll admit.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Hmmmmmm

...after careful deliberation on this case

...I have decided

...I don't much care.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Paperview said:

Some of this was addressed in an article I posted last week.


If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway
A deadlocked court favors Democrats...

It discusses the situation facing the court now about cases that have been heard, but are in that pipeline phase where drafts are circulated and the final opinion is worked out, which can take months. During that time, a justice can change his or her vote along the way.

"The court is not yet halfway through the 80 or 90 cases it deals with each term, but many of the most contentious have already been heard.

Normally, justices meet the week a case is argued, and vote on the outcome. So they have most likely already voted on pending cases on apportionment and affirmative action, for example.

But weeks or months can go by while the justice assigned the opinion circulates drafts. Any justice can change his or her vote at any point during that process, and often does. It’s all very hush-hush, so there is no way to tell how far along the cases Scalia heard are in the pipeline.

There is no constitutional provision, no case law and no official policy about what the court should do with cases that have been argued and voted on when a justice dies.

If the vote in a case that hasn’t yet been handed down was 5 to 4, as one might expect with these controversial rulings, can Scalia cast the deciding vote from beyond the grave to change the way America chooses every legislature in the land or integrates its public universities? "

A court that cares about its image and constitutional role will not rule in the name of a majority that counts on a dead justice, especially on the core issues of American social life. Such posthumous decisions are so unprecedented they would make Bush v. Gore look like responsible judicial behavior."

Click to expand...

Republicans have grabbed a tiger by the tail here. Already two republican senators in re-election campaigns this year are trying to distance themselves from the party. If their goal was to give the dems something to mobilize their base and a lot of independents they've succeeded.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

digitusmedius said:

In fact, that is exactly what the lawyer in AZ is suggesting.

Click to expand...

You need to reread the article.

He's arguing that in cases where Scalia had already sat for the trial, and heard all of the oral arguments and examined whatever evidence was presented, and met in conference with his fellow justices to discuss the case, and cast his vote - that vote should stand - whether or not the opinions have been written and published.

He even says that he isn't proposing we use a ouija board to determine Scalia's position or opinion on issues he hadn't actually voted on before his death.

And as I've said, I don't even agree with the guy as far as his real argument goes.

There is a very, very, very, very minuscule chance that, unlikely as it may have been, Scalia could have changed his mind in the period of time between when is vote was cast and when the official opinion was published so that even though for all practical purposes his vote was final it wasn't actually final in a fully official sense.

Because that gnat's hair of a chance exists that he might have changed his mind had he chosen to I think we have to scratch any cases he rendered a vote on which hadn't been finally published at the time of his death.

But to reiterate, neither Kory Langhofer nor myself are arguing that there is any option but to retry the case if Scalia hadn't even voted on it.

I bring it up to illustrate how unhinged the people suggesting this can get.

Click to expand...

But all you're really doing is illustrating how unhinged you are.

You're claiming that your article says things it doesn't say just so you can take a contradictory position and manufacture a hypothetical argument against and imaginary position.

Actually, I think even that is giving you far too much credit because you aren't even presenting a rational counter argument, you're just calling people names like some kind of myopic, ideological robot.

Feel free to go ahead and have the last word here but I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this ridiculous "discussion".

You aren't even making sense.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

soot said:

You need to reread the article.

He's arguing that in cases where Scalia had already sat for the trial, heard all of the oral arguments and examined whatever evidence was presented, met in conference with his fellow justices to discuss the case, and cast his vote - that vote should stand - whether or not the opinions have been written and published.

He even says that he isn't proposing we use a ouija board to determine Scalia's position or opinion on issues he hadn't actually voted on before his death.



But all you're really doing is illustrating how unhinged you are.

You're claiming that your article says things it doesn't say just so you can take a contradictory position and manufacture a hypothetical argument against and imaginary position.

Actually, I think even that is giving you far too much credit because you aren't even presenting a rational counter argument, you're just calling people names like some kind of myopic, ideological robot.

Feel free to go ahead and have the last word here but I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this ridiculous "discussion".

You aren't even making sense.

Click to expand...

Looks like you need to do some re-reading. His ouija board comment was that one wasn't required:

"There’s no Ouija board required to figure out how Justice Scalia would vote on these things, he’s already voted," attorney Kory Langhofer said during a discussion on Phoenix, Arizona, television station KPNX. "We're at the second-to-last step in how these cases unfold when Justice Scalia died."

Click to expand...

He's claiming that being at the second to the last step is close enough. I compared that to using someone's primary vote as their general election vote if they died before the general. I'm not even sure what he means by "second to the last step." First, he has no idea which step any one case is in at any one time. Is it the draft-circulation to the other justices step or the final draft of his opinion step or when the final draft is submitted to the clerk for recording. For all we know that may have already happened with some decisions and I would assume that Scalia's "vote" would count if the case had been finalized before his death. We may find out in May or June that Scalia's opinion has been rendered and his vote has been counted on some of these cases. But that's not apparently what Langhofer is aiming for. He seems to want any case that Scalia heard subjected to a guess about what Scalia's opinion would likely have been.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

digitusmedius said:

What "votes?" Where and what are they? Again, I really marvel at the **** you people think you can rationalize not to mention get away with.

Click to expand...

if he already casted his vote on the case while he was alive then it should be counted as such.
which 100% negates what you said.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

ludin said:

if he already casted his vote on the case while he was alive then it should be counted as such.
which 100% negates what you said.

Click to expand...

Of course that would count if the case has been completed while he was alive. No one's ever argued otherwise. That's not at all what the d-bag in AZ is suggesting. He want's all of the cases heard by Scalia given Scalia's vote no matter how far along the process has gone. It's really much to far along in this thread to use strawman gambit to try to derail the discussion.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

"Von Spakovsky is correct that justices cast votes in a private conference after hearing cases … but those votes sometimes change as the justices work on their opinions.


Shortly after Scalia’s death, veteran Supreme Court attorney Roy Englert told ABC that the “vote of a deceased justices does not count.”

Irony: "von Spakovsky has been one of the primary drivers of the myth that massive voter fraud requires suppressive laws that make it harder to vote. One of the voter-fraud specters he has raised is that of people casting votes on behalf of people who have died."

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

ludin said:

if he already casted his vote on the case while he was alive then it should be counted as such.
which 100% negates what you said.

Click to expand...

"All opinions of the Court are, typically, handed down by the last day of the Court's term (the day in late June/early July when the Court recesses for the summer). With the exception of this deadline, there are no rules concerning when decisions must be released. Typically, decisions that are unanimous are released sooner than those that have concurring and dissenting opinions. While some unanimous decisions are handed down as early as December, some controversial opinions, even if heard in October, may not be handed down until the last day of the term.

A majority of Justices must agree to all of the contents of the Court's opinion before it is publicly delivered. Justices do this by "signing onto" the opinion. The Justice in charge of writing the opinion must be careful to take into consideration the comments and concerns of the others who voted in the majority. If this does not happen, there may not be enough Justices to maintain the majority.

On rare occasions in close cases, a dissenting opinion later becomes the majority opinion because one or more Justices switch their votes after reading the drafts of the majority and dissenting opinions. No opinion is considered the official opinion of the Court until it is delivered in open Court (or at least made available to the public).

On days when the Court is hearing oral arguments, decisions may be handed down before the arguments are heard. During the months of May and June, the Court meets at 10 a.m. every Monday to release opinions. During the last week of the term, additional days may be designated as "opinion days."

Supreme Court Procedures | United States Courts

digitusmedius said:

Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Golly, I just love republicans for **** like this. Here they make up stories about voter fraud and how dead people are voting for dems in yooooge numbers, stealing elections away from real americans and this guy comes out and actually declares that voting by a dead person should be allowed.



As I've said before many times, ridiculing or satirizing republicans is so difficult since they do such a good job doing it to themselves. Can we pleeeeze, pleeeeze have some moah? Why, yes, yes we can. There's plenty of insanity to go around:



Of course these psychopathic sociopaths don't back down. That's why they're psychopathic sociopaths.

Click to expand...

My post is going to be nuanced. The cases have been heard, and the justices were writing their opinions. In cases where Scalia failed to finish writing his opinion, then his vote should not count because the opinion gives the legal justification for that vote. However, in cases where Scalia did finish writing his opinion, then whether or not he is alive doesn't matter. His opinion exists, and the vote based on that opinion should count.

danarhea said:

My post is going to be nuanced. The cases have been heard, and the justices were writing their opinions. In cases where Scalia failed to finish writing his opinion, then his vote should not count because the opinion gives the legal justification for that vote. However, in cases where Scalia did finish writing his opinion, then whether or not he is alive doesn't matter. His opinion exists, and the vote based on that opinion should count.

Click to expand...

Mine's going to be a little more nuanced. It would require that all the final opinions would have to have been written and the case completed for that to occur.

Addendum: IOW, just as descibed by Paperview's comment and references above which I've just now seen.

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

soot said:

You need to reread the article.

He's arguing that in cases where Scalia had already sat for the trial, and heard all of the oral arguments and examined whatever evidence was presented, and met in conference with his fellow justices to discuss the case, and cast his vote - that vote should stand - whether or not the opinions have been written and published.

He even says that he isn't proposing we use a ouija board to determine Scalia's position or opinion on issues he hadn't actually voted on before his death.

And as I've said, I don't even agree with the guy as far as his real argument goes.

There is a very, very, very, very minuscule chance that, unlikely as it may have been, Scalia could have changed his mind in the period of time between when is vote was cast and when the official opinion was published so that even though for all practical purposes his vote was final it wasn't actually final in a fully official sense.

Because that gnat's hair of a chance exists that he might have changed his mind had he chosen to I think we have to scratch any cases he rendered a vote on which hadn't been finally published at the time of his death.

But to reiterate, neither Kory Langhofer nor myself are arguing that there is any option but to retry the case if Scalia hadn't even voted on it.



But all you're really doing is illustrating how unhinged you are.

You're claiming that your article says things it doesn't say just so you can take a contradictory position and manufacture a hypothetical argument against and imaginary position.

Actually, I think even that is giving you far too much credit because you aren't even presenting a rational counter argument, you're just calling people names like some kind of myopic, ideological robot.

Feel free to go ahead and have the last word here but I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this ridiculous "discussion".

You aren't even making sense.

Click to expand...

good post-some of the rabid Scalia haters have lost all sense of reality

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

ludin said:

if he already casted his vote on the case while he was alive then it should be counted as such.
which 100% negates what you said.

Click to expand...

See Paperview's well documented description above for how the court operates to see how wrong you are.

digitusmedius said:

Mine's going to be a little more nuanced. It would require that all the final opinions would have to have been written and the case completed for that to occur.

Addendum: IOW, just as descibed by Paperview's comment and references above which I've just now seen.

Click to expand...

Good point. I missed where they all had to sign on.

digitusmedius said:

Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Golly, I just love republicans for **** like this. Here they make up stories about voter fraud and how dead people are voting for dems in yooooge numbers, stealing elections away from real americans and this guy comes out and actually declares that voting by a dead person should be allowed.



As I've said before many times, ridiculing or satirizing republicans is so difficult since they do such a good job doing it to themselves. Can we pleeeeze, pleeeeze have some moah? Why, yes, yes we can. There's plenty of insanity to go around:



Of course these psychopathic sociopaths don't back down. That's why they're psychopathic sociopaths.

Click to expand...

If he already voted on a certain case, what grounds do you have to nullify his vote?

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

JasperL said:

Maybe you can answer the question but if it was permissible or possible for Scalia to change his mind prior to the opinion being issued, then I don't see how he's actually cast a binding vote before the opinion is released. And if the "vote" isn't binding until publication, and he died before it's published, then obviously his vote cannot count.

That's entirely different than someone casting an early ballot - once it's cast, it's final, no take backs possible.

Click to expand...

It is not obvious. Why would you think he would change his vote in any of the matters before the court?

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Mason66 said:

It is not obvious. Why would you think he would change his vote in any of the matters before the court?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if there is no chance, 0.0% he will change his intended "vote." Until it IS binding, all he's done is express a non-binding indication of how he plans to vote.

Think about any other ballot - nothing counts until it's final. Seems obvious to me.

Mason66 said:

If he already voted on a certain case, what grounds do you have to nullify his vote?

Click to expand...

That scenario has already been addressed many comments ago. The question is what counts as a vote. The scumbag rightwing AZ lawyer who inspired this thread (who's now been joined in this argument by the even scummier Hans von Spakovsky who's earned his rightwing scumbaggery stripes by alleging false voter fraud claims, including that dead people are voting -- but only for dems) who wants to say that whatever Scalia was thinking in the informal discussion session with all the justices which usually comes at the end of the week of the oral argument of the case should count as his vote even before Scalia's final opinion has been written. But that informal oral discussion is followed by draft opinions which are circulated to all the justices who return them with comments and it's not at all rare for final opinions to differ from those drafts. For one thing, who gets to tell us what Scalia was thinking in that session or what his draft opinion contained. I noted that one of the last cases of any major import heard by Scalia was Friedrichs which, if the plaintiff wins, would deal a big blow to public sector unions. That was on January 11 so there might be a final ruling on that case already and would contain Scalia's vote. No one deny that that's a valid ruling IF it that condition was met. It may not be announced until late May or even June unless the CJ decides these cases need to be announced sooner in order to settle this argument.