Major setback for religious right

"stoney" <stoney.TakeThisOut@the.net> wrote in message
news:e9hv30lvnf6op20liqtlgu184ur1ad85dm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:58:00 -0500, "ZenIsWhen"
> <ZenIsWhen.TakeThisOut@anywhere.com>, Message ID:
> <103q32dl5ocusb2.TakeThisOut@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
> >
> ><buckeye_ELO.TakeThisOut@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >news:ik1q3055v19pv7s7ufesb703f9bfhmgcv2@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> US Top Court Upholds Religion Scholarship Ban
> >>
>
>http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=82556
4
> >&tw=wn_wire_story
> >
> >First of all ... I would have used a different header - perhaps one that
> >indicates the Constitution was defend AGAINST attacks from the Religious
> >Right.
> >
> >Second ........ this is a quote from the article.........
> >
> >"
> >Scalia wondered what would happen next.
> >
> >"Will we deny priests and nuns their prescription drug benefits on the
> >ground that taxpayers' freedom of conscience forbids medicating the
clergy
> >at public expense?""
> >
> >
> >
> >This is a Supreme Court justice?
> >
> >This STUPID statement makes him look exactly like the ignorant fanatical
> >Reich wing zealots he is supporting!
>
> That's because Scalia *is* an ignorant fanatical Reich wing zealot.

No, he's not. That's what makes him so dangerous. He's a *deliberate*
right-wing zealot.
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

Tales_of_the_Western_World DeleteThis @webtv.net (Western World) wrote:

>:|Buckeye wrote:
>
>>What is really remarkable is Rehnquist
>>wrote the Majority opinion. I am impressed,    
>
>I was equally stoned by the event. A-fuqqin-amazing~! SAY WHAT~!~?
>:|Shocking I say old chap~!~! 

This was offered by another in another newsgroup and it might very well be
true;

He was trying to protect what he spent 20 working to achieve, the over
turning of the "No Aid to Religion" aspect of Everson.

[A. Magidin wrote]
Yeah, but the big surprise was Rehnquist; when I looked it up in the
SCOTUS site and saw that Rehnquist had written the opinion, my heart
felt to my stomach: I was sure that meant the decision below had been
affirmed and the ban declared unconstitutional. Imagine my surprise
when I saw this was not the case...

My guess, based on reading the opinion, is that Rehnquist wanted to
make sure that the opinion was narrow and did not endanger positive
action by the government. The opinion says that the government is not
required to provide money for purely religious pursuits in programs
like this. However, it also seems to implies that the government would
be ->allowed<- to extend this program to fund vocational religious
instruction if it chose to do so. The latter is the sort of position
that Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer have opposed in the past,
but Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Kennedy have supported. Had Rehnquist
voted with Scalia and Thomas, Stevens would have assigned the opinion,
and you can bet he would have gone further. By voting with the
majority, Rehnquist kept control of the opinion and made sure it was
narrowly cast.
======================================================================
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:38:43 -0600, Gray Shockley
<gray-87a.DeleteThis@cybercoffee.org>, Message ID:
<0001HW.BC658583009D559214D8D280.DeleteThis@news.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;

>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:31:56 -0600, stoney wrote
>(in message <e9hv30lvnf6op20liqtlgu184ur1ad85dm.DeleteThis@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:58:00 -0500, "ZenIsWhen"
>> <ZenIsWhen.DeleteThis@anywhere.com>, Message ID:
>> <103q32dl5ocusb2.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
>>>
>>> <buckeye_ELO.DeleteThis@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ik1q3055v19pv7s7ufesb703f9bfhmgcv2@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> US Top Court Upholds Religion Scholarship Ban
>>>>
>>> http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=82556
>>> 4
>>> &tw=wn_wire_story
>>>
>>> First of all ... I would have used a different header - perhaps one that
>>> indicates the Constitution was defend AGAINST attacks from the Religious
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> Second ........ this is a quote from the article.........
>>>
>>> "
>>> Scalia wondered what would happen next.
>>>
>>> "Will we deny priests and nuns their prescription drug benefits on the
>>> ground that taxpayers' freedom of conscience forbids medicating the clergy
>>> at public expense?""
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a Supreme Court justice?
>>>
>>> This STUPID statement makes him look exactly like the ignorant fanatical
>>> Reich wing zealots he is supporting!
>>
>> That's because Scalia *is* an ignorant fanatical Reich wing zealot.
>>
>
>And that's his /good/ side.

(wince) Sadly, you're correct.



Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:26:04 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx RemoveThis @hotmail.com>, Message
ID: <0wW%b.31536$o67.78@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;

>"stoney" <stoney RemoveThis @the.net> wrote in message
>news:e9hv30lvnf6op20liqtlgu184ur1ad85dm@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:58:00 -0500, "ZenIsWhen"
>> <ZenIsWhen RemoveThis @anywhere.com>, Message ID:
>> <103q32dl5ocusb2 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>
>> >
>> ><buckeye_ELO RemoveThis @nospam.net> wrote in message
>> >news:ik1q3055v19pv7s7ufesb703f9bfhmgcv2@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> US Top Court Upholds Religion Scholarship Ban
>> >>
>>
>>http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=82556
>4
>> >&tw=wn_wire_story
>> >
>> >First of all ... I would have used a different header - perhaps one that
>> >indicates the Constitution was defend AGAINST attacks from the Religious
>> >Right.
>> >
>> >Second ........ this is a quote from the article.........
>> >
>> >"
>> >Scalia wondered what would happen next.
>> >
>> >"Will we deny priests and nuns their prescription drug benefits on the
>> >ground that taxpayers' freedom of conscience forbids medicating the
>clergy
>> >at public expense?""
>> >
>> >This is a Supreme Court justice?
>> >
>> >This STUPID statement makes him look exactly like the ignorant fanatical
>> >Reich wing zealots he is supporting!
>>
>> That's because Scalia *is* an ignorant fanatical Reich wing zealot.
>
>No, he's not. That's what makes him so dangerous. He's a *deliberate*
>right-wing zealot.

I stand corrected. I was being overly optimistic. Apologies.




Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

In article <kgv040ppbvluluo05vhp19b0n6qh0e1h01.TakeThisOut@4ax.com> buckeye-ELO.TakeThisOut@nospam.net writes:
<Tales_of_the_Western_World.TakeThisOut@webtv.net (Western World) wrote:
<
<>:|Buckeye wrote:
<>
<>>What is really remarkable is Rehnquist
<>>wrote the Majority opinion. I am impressed,    
<>
<>I was equally stoned by the event. A-fuqqin-amazing~! SAY WHAT~!~?
<>:|Shocking I say old chap~!~! 
<
<This was offered by another in another newsgroup and it might very well be
<true;
<
<He was trying to protect what he spent 20 working to achieve, the over
<turning of the "No Aid to Religion" aspect of Everson.
<
< [A. Magidin wrote]
<Yeah, but the big surprise was Rehnquist; when I looked it up in the
<SCOTUS site and saw that Rehnquist had written the opinion, my heart
<felt to my stomach: I was sure that meant the decision below had been
<affirmed and the ban declared unconstitutional. Imagine my surprise
<when I saw this was not the case...
<
<My guess, based on reading the opinion, is that Rehnquist wanted to
<make sure that the opinion was narrow and did not endanger positive
<action by the government. The opinion says that the government is not
<required to provide money for purely religious pursuits in programs
<like this. However, it also seems to implies that the government would
<be ->allowed<- to extend this program to fund vocational religious
<instruction if it chose to do so. The latter is the sort of position
<that Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer have opposed in the past,
<but Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Kennedy have supported. Had Rehnquist
<voted with Scalia and Thomas, Stevens would have assigned the opinion,
<and you can bet he would have gone further. By voting with the
<majority, Rehnquist kept control of the opinion and made sure it was
<narrowly cast.

That's a very interesting analysis. Who decides who gets to write
the opinion? I mean, I realize it's a member of the majority,
but after that what?


-- cary
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

cary DeleteThis @afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

>:|In article <kgv040ppbvluluo05vhp19b0n6qh0e1h01 DeleteThis @4ax.com> buckeye-ELO DeleteThis @nospam.net writes:
><Tales_of_the_Western_World DeleteThis @webtv.net (Western World) wrote:
><
><>:|Buckeye wrote:
><>
><>>What is really remarkable is Rehnquist
><>>wrote the Majority opinion. I am impressed,    
><>
><>I was equally stoned by the event. A-fuqqin-amazing~! SAY WHAT~!~?
><>:|Shocking I say old chap~!~! 
><
><This was offered by another in another newsgroup and it might very well be
><true;
><
><He was trying to protect what he spent 20 working to achieve, the over
><turning of the "No Aid to Religion" aspect of Everson.
><
>< [A. Magidin wrote]
><Yeah, but the big surprise was Rehnquist; when I looked it up in the
><SCOTUS site and saw that Rehnquist had written the opinion, my heart
><felt to my stomach: I was sure that meant the decision below had been
><affirmed and the ban declared unconstitutional. Imagine my surprise
><when I saw this was not the case...
><
><My guess, based on reading the opinion, is that Rehnquist wanted to
><make sure that the opinion was narrow and did not endanger positive
><action by the government. The opinion says that the government is not
><required to provide money for purely religious pursuits in programs
><like this. However, it also seems to implies that the government would
><be ->allowed<- to extend this program to fund vocational religious
><instruction if it chose to do so. The latter is the sort of position
><that Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer have opposed in the past,
><but Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Kennedy have supported. Had Rehnquist
><voted with Scalia and Thomas, Stevens would have assigned the opinion,
><and you can bet he would have gone further. By voting with the
><majority, Rehnquist kept control of the opinion and made sure it was
><narrowly cast.
>
>:|That's a very interesting analysis. Who decides who gets to write
>:|the opinion? I mean, I realize it's a member of the majority,
>:|but after that what?
>

I have the information here, but to find it might be another matter.

As I understand it off the top of my head is that one of the perks of the C
Justice is he gets to assign cases to people. Now this may only mean that
said justice is gonna be given a handful of cases to spread among his or
her clerks and nothing more than that.

Again, I would have to look it up

However, I do think that seniority also might come into play and using that
thought, if Rehnquist could only get Scalia and Thomas to go his way that
would give him the minority position, most senior justice with the
majority would be Stevens.
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

cary.TakeThisOut@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

>:|In article <kgv040ppbvluluo05vhp19b0n6qh0e1h01.TakeThisOut@4ax.com> buckeye-ELO.TakeThisOut@nospam.net writes:
><Tales_of_the_Western_World.TakeThisOut@webtv.net (Western World) wrote:
><
><>:|Buckeye wrote:
><>
><>>What is really remarkable is Rehnquist
><>>wrote the Majority opinion. I am impressed,    
><>
><>I was equally stoned by the event. A-fuqqin-amazing~! SAY WHAT~!~?
><>:|Shocking I say old chap~!~! 
><
><This was offered by another in another newsgroup and it might very well be
><true;
><
><He was trying to protect what he spent 20 working to achieve, the over
><turning of the "No Aid to Religion" aspect of Everson.
><
>< [A. Magidin wrote]
><Yeah, but the big surprise was Rehnquist; when I looked it up in the
><SCOTUS site and saw that Rehnquist had written the opinion, my heart
><felt to my stomach: I was sure that meant the decision below had been
><affirmed and the ban declared unconstitutional. Imagine my surprise
><when I saw this was not the case...
><
><My guess, based on reading the opinion, is that Rehnquist wanted to
><make sure that the opinion was narrow and did not endanger positive
><action by the government. The opinion says that the government is not
><required to provide money for purely religious pursuits in programs
><like this. However, it also seems to implies that the government would
><be ->allowed<- to extend this program to fund vocational religious
><instruction if it chose to do so. The latter is the sort of position
><that Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer have opposed in the past,
><but Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Kennedy have supported. Had Rehnquist
><voted with Scalia and Thomas, Stevens would have assigned the opinion,
><and you can bet he would have gone further. By voting with the
><majority, Rehnquist kept control of the opinion and made sure it was
><narrowly cast.
>
>:|That's a very interesting analysis. Who decides who gets to write
>:|the opinion? I mean, I realize it's a member of the majority,
>:|but after that what?
>

The sequence: (This entire sequence can take months)

The court "granted cert" (agreed to hear appeals)

Briefs are filed with the court from all parties as well as "amici"
(friends of the court, or supporters of one side) files briefs

There will be one hour of oral arguments. The attorney for each side
usually has 30 minutes. Often the attorney is interrupted by questions from
the justices. Journalists take notes and do sketches but may not use
recording devices, and there is no television camera in court. The court
makes an audio recording for later deposit in the National Archives. (Past
arguments are at http://www.oyez.org/cases/cases.cgi.)

On the Friday of the week the case is heard, the nine justices will meet
behind closed doors and take a preliminary vote.

If the chief justice is in the majority, he decides who writes the court's
opinion of the rationale why lower-court opinions should or should not be
upheld.

If the chief is not in the majority, the senior justice in the majority
assigns the opinion. Whoever is assigned begins writing and circulates
drafts while other justices in the majority indicate whether they will join
(add their names to the main opinion) or concur (write separate opinions
giving different rationales).

Sometime before July—usually in mid- to late-June for major cases—the court
will announce the outcome. The majority opinions, concurrences and dissents
will be posted on the court's Web site, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/. How
much impact the decisions will have depends on whether they are sweeping or
narrow.
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:41:29 -0600, buckeye-ELO.RemoveThis@nospam.net wrote
(in message <0rn140p80uh2pkggmp9l0nlagar6om8bd0.RemoveThis@4ax.com>):

> cary.RemoveThis@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>
>>>> In article <kgv040ppbvluluo05vhp19b0n6qh0e1h01.RemoveThis@4ax.com>
>>>> buckeye-ELO.RemoveThis@nospam.net writes:
>>>> <Tales_of_the_Western_World.RemoveThis@webtv.net (Western World) wrote:
>>>> <
>>>> <>:|Buckeye wrote:
>>>> <>
>>>> <>>What is really remarkable is Rehnquist
>>>> <>>wrote the Majority opinion. I am impressed,    
>>>> <>
>>>> <>I was equally stoned by the event. A-fuqqin-amazing~! SAY WHAT~!~?
>>>> <>:|Shocking I say old chap~!~! 
>>>> <
>>>> <This was offered by another in another newsgroup and it might very
>>>> well be
>>>> <true;
>>>> <
>>>> <He was trying to protect what he spent 20 working to achieve, the over
>>>> <turning of the "No Aid to Religion" aspect of Everson.
>>>> <
>>>> < [A. Magidin wrote]
>>>> <Yeah, but the big surprise was Rehnquist; when I looked it up in the
>>>> <SCOTUS site and saw that Rehnquist had written the opinion, my heart
>>>> <felt to my stomach: I was sure that meant the decision below had been
>>>> <affirmed and the ban declared unconstitutional. Imagine my surprise
>>>> <when I saw this was not the case...
>>>> <
>>>> <My guess, based on reading the opinion, is that Rehnquist wanted to
>>>> <make sure that the opinion was narrow and did not endanger positive
>>>> <action by the government. The opinion says that the government is not
>>>> <required to provide money for purely religious pursuits in programs
>>>> <like this. However, it also seems to implies that the government would
>>>> <be ->allowed<- to extend this program to fund vocational religious
>>>> <instruction if it chose to do so. The latter is the sort of position
>>>> <that Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer have opposed in the past,
>>>> <but Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Kennedy have supported. Had Rehnquist
>>>> <voted with Scalia and Thomas, Stevens would have assigned the opinion,
>>>> <and you can bet he would have gone further. By voting with the
>>>> <majority, Rehnquist kept control of the opinion and made sure it was
>>>> <narrowly cast.
>>>>
>>>> That's a very interesting analysis. Who decides who gets to write
>>>> the opinion? I mean, I realize it's a member of the majority,
>>>> but after that what?
>>>>
>
> I have the information here, but to find it might be another matter.
>
> As I understand it off the top of my head is that one of the perks of the C
> Justice is he gets to assign cases to people. Now this may only mean that
> said justice is gonna be given a handful of cases to spread among his or
> her clerks and nothing more than that.
>
> Again, I would have to look it up
>
> However, I do think that seniority also might come into play and using that
> thought, if Rehnquist could only get Scalia and Thomas to go his way that
> would give him the minority position, most senior justice with the
> majority would be Stevens.
>

--------------------------------------------------------

<http://dl.ccc.cccd.edu/classes/internet/politicalscience100/lecturenotes/lec1
1.htm>

The Justices hear a few cases a day, after they have met months earlier to
decide which cases to hear.  After about twelve (12) cases, they meet in
private and vote with the newest member who votes first with the Chief
Justice (a post that is selected separately) who votes last.  Then someone on
the majority side of the agreement must write for the majority.  The Chief
Justice gets first pick and so down to the newest member who has to write the
opinion if no one else will take it.  Then the dissent side must find a
writer and handle the procedures in the same way.  The Justices have a few
months to write their opinions and then the others must sign or write their
own.  The majority opinion with the most signatures becomes law.  The dissent
is sometimes used as a base if years later the Court overturns the
precedent. 

--------------------------------------------------------


/gray/
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

In article <0rn140p80uh2pkggmp9l0nlagar6om8bd0.RemoveThis@4ax.com> buckeye-ELO.RemoveThis@nospam.net writes:
<cary.RemoveThis@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
<
<>:|In article <kgv040ppbvluluo05vhp19b0n6qh0e1h01.RemoveThis@4ax.com> buckeye-ELO.RemoveThis@nospam.net writes:
<><Tales_of_the_Western_World.RemoveThis@webtv.net (Western World) wrote:
<><
<><>:|Buckeye wrote:
<><>
<><>>What is really remarkable is Rehnquist
<><>>wrote the Majority opinion. I am impressed,    
<><>
<><>I was equally stoned by the event. A-fuqqin-amazing~! SAY WHAT~!~?
<><>:|Shocking I say old chap~!~! 
<><
<><This was offered by another in another newsgroup and it might very well be
<><true;
<><
<><He was trying to protect what he spent 20 working to achieve, the over
<><turning of the "No Aid to Religion" aspect of Everson.
<><
<>< [A. Magidin wrote]
<><Yeah, but the big surprise was Rehnquist; when I looked it up in the
<><SCOTUS site and saw that Rehnquist had written the opinion, my heart
<><felt to my stomach: I was sure that meant the decision below had been
<><affirmed and the ban declared unconstitutional. Imagine my surprise
<><when I saw this was not the case...
<><
<><My guess, based on reading the opinion, is that Rehnquist wanted to
<><make sure that the opinion was narrow and did not endanger positive
<><action by the government. The opinion says that the government is not
<><required to provide money for purely religious pursuits in programs
<><like this. However, it also seems to implies that the government would
<><be ->allowed<- to extend this program to fund vocational religious
<><instruction if it chose to do so. The latter is the sort of position
<><that Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer have opposed in the past,
<><but Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Kennedy have supported. Had Rehnquist
<><voted with Scalia and Thomas, Stevens would have assigned the opinion,
<><and you can bet he would have gone further. By voting with the
<><majority, Rehnquist kept control of the opinion and made sure it was
<><narrowly cast.
<>
<>:|That's a very interesting analysis. Who decides who gets to write
<>:|the opinion? I mean, I realize it's a member of the majority,
<>:|but after that what?
<>
<
<I have the information here, but to find it might be another matter.
<
<As I understand it off the top of my head is that one of the perks of the C
<Justice is he gets to assign cases to people. Now this may only mean that
<said justice is gonna be given a handful of cases to spread among his or
<her clerks and nothing more than that.
<
<Again, I would have to look it up
<
<However, I do think that seniority also might come into play and using that
<thought, if Rehnquist could only get Scalia and Thomas to go his way that
<would give him the minority position, most senior justice with the
<majority would be Stevens.
<

Now there's an interesting thought. Stevens is sort of the Fifth Beatle
of the Supremes, isn't he?


-- cary
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

cary.TakeThisOut@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

>:|Now there's an interesting thought. Stevens is sort of the Fifth Beatle
>:|of the Supremes, isn't he?

Hehehehehe I think that he is the only one left on the court that could
truly qualify as a real liberal.

You have, generally speaking, the big three
Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas who are conservatives
You have O'Connor and Kennedy who are conservatives but get moderate at
times and might even tippy toe into liberal lite on rare occasions
You have the other three who are moderate pretty much but do dance into
liberal territory at times but on occasions daces over to conservative lite
too.
Stevens is pretty liberal compared to all the others.
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:03:44 -0600, buckeye-ELO RemoveThis @nospam.net wrote
(in message <g5p1405rlk77a9n9tud1iu2poj988i77n4 RemoveThis @4ax.com>):

> cary RemoveThis @afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>
>>>> Now there's an interesting thought. Stevens is sort of the Fifth Beatle
>>>> of the Supremes, isn't he?
>
> Hehehehehe I think that he is the only one left on the court that could
> truly qualify as a real liberal.
>
> You have, generally speaking, the big three
> Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas who are conservatives


I have never seen anything which Associate Justice Scalia has done that would
make me think that he is a "conservative" in any honorable use of that word
(whatever that might (or might not) be).

In fact, I can't think of very much honorable with which Associate Justice
Scalia has ever been "associated".


Associate Justice Scalia pretty much reminds me of the old Southern "Holey
Trinity" of Governors Wallace, Barnett and Faubus - all of them Moore-ons.


> You have O'Connor and Kennedy who are conservatives but get moderate at
> times and might even tippy toe into liberal lite on rare occasions
> You have the other three who are moderate pretty much but do dance into
> liberal territory at times but on occasions daces over to conservative lite
> too.
> Stevens is pretty liberal compared to all the others.
>

/gray/
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

In article <fco140pdm0vr69h95bpgvbbef9fdjlducj.TakeThisOut@4ax.com> buckeye-ELO.TakeThisOut@nospam.net writes:
<cary.TakeThisOut@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
<
<>:|In article <kgv040ppbvluluo05vhp19b0n6qh0e1h01.TakeThisOut@4ax.com> buckeye-ELO.TakeThisOut@nospam.net writes:
<><Tales_of_the_Western_World.TakeThisOut@webtv.net (Western World) wrote:
<><
<><>:|Buckeye wrote:
<><>
<><>>What is really remarkable is Rehnquist
<><>>wrote the Majority opinion. I am impressed,    
<><>
<><>I was equally stoned by the event. A-fuqqin-amazing~! SAY WHAT~!~?
<><>:|Shocking I say old chap~!~! 
<><
<><This was offered by another in another newsgroup and it might very well be
<><true;
<><
<><He was trying to protect what he spent 20 working to achieve, the over
<><turning of the "No Aid to Religion" aspect of Everson.
<><
<>< [A. Magidin wrote]
<><Yeah, but the big surprise was Rehnquist; when I looked it up in the
<><SCOTUS site and saw that Rehnquist had written the opinion, my heart
<><felt to my stomach: I was sure that meant the decision below had been
<><affirmed and the ban declared unconstitutional. Imagine my surprise
<><when I saw this was not the case...
<><
<><My guess, based on reading the opinion, is that Rehnquist wanted to
<><make sure that the opinion was narrow and did not endanger positive
<><action by the government. The opinion says that the government is not
<><required to provide money for purely religious pursuits in programs
<><like this. However, it also seems to implies that the government would
<><be ->allowed<- to extend this program to fund vocational religious
<><instruction if it chose to do so. The latter is the sort of position
<><that Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer have opposed in the past,
<><but Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Kennedy have supported. Had Rehnquist
<><voted with Scalia and Thomas, Stevens would have assigned the opinion,
<><and you can bet he would have gone further. By voting with the
<><majority, Rehnquist kept control of the opinion and made sure it was
<><narrowly cast.
<>
<>:|That's a very interesting analysis. Who decides who gets to write
<>:|the opinion? I mean, I realize it's a member of the majority,
<>:|but after that what?
<>
<
<The sequence: (This entire sequence can take months)
<
< The court "granted cert" (agreed to hear appeals)
<
<Briefs are filed with the court from all parties as well as "amici"
<(friends of the court, or supporters of one side) files briefs
<
<There will be one hour of oral arguments. The attorney for each side
<usually has 30 minutes. Often the attorney is interrupted by questions from
<the justices. Journalists take notes and do sketches but may not use
<recording devices, and there is no television camera in court. The court
<makes an audio recording for later deposit in the National Archives. (Past
<arguments are at http://www.oyez.org/cases/cases.cgi.)
<
<On the Friday of the week the case is heard, the nine justices will meet
<behind closed doors and take a preliminary vote.
<
<If the chief justice is in the majority, he decides who writes the court's
<opinion of the rationale why lower-court opinions should or should not be
<upheld.
<
<If the chief is not in the majority, the senior justice in the majority
<assigns the opinion. Whoever is assigned begins writing and circulates
<drafts while other justices in the majority indicate whether they will join
<(add their names to the main opinion) or concur (write separate opinions
<giving different rationales).
<
<Sometime before July—usually in mid- to late-June for major cases—the court
<will announce the outcome. The majority opinions, concurrences and dissents
<will be posted on the court's Web site, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/. How
<much impact the decisions will have depends on whether they are sweeping or
<narrow.


Very interesting. A keeper. Thank you very much.


I'm so used to hearing Nina "Torts" Totenberg do her little voice-play
of the oral arguments from her notes that I figure all the Justicii must
sound just like her.


-- cary
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right 

cary.RemoveThis@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in message news:<c1qiig$5ap$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>...

[.snip. I was quoted by Buckeye.]

> < [A. Magidin wrote]
> <Yeah, but the big surprise was Rehnquist; when I looked it up in the
> <SCOTUS site and saw that Rehnquist had written the opinion, my heart
> <felt to my stomach: I was sure that meant the decision below had been
> <affirmed and the ban declared unconstitutional. Imagine my surprise
> <when I saw this was not the case...
> <
> <My guess, based on reading the opinion, is that Rehnquist wanted to
> <make sure that the opinion was narrow and did not endanger positive
> <action by the government.


[.rest of my quote deleted.]

> That's a very interesting analysis. Who decides who gets to write
> the opinion? I mean, I realize it's a member of the majority,
> but after that what?

After the first vote in conference, the most senior Justice in the
majority may assign the opinion to any member of the majority. The
Chief Justice is always considered to be the most senior member (and,
in the current court, it just so happens that he is, if you count
Rehnquist's years as Associate Justice). Right now, the following
justices may find themselves in a position to assign an opinion: CJ
Rehnquist, J Stevens, J O'Connor, J Scalia, and J Kennedy. Each gets
to assign the opinion if at least four justices, none of which are the
ones named before him in the list I just gave, vote with them. So it
would be very rare (I don't know if it has ever happened) for Kennedy,
for example, to assign an opinion: he would have to vote with Souter,
Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, and against Rehnquist, Stevens,
O'Connor, and Scalia. Seems like a weird combination.

It happens. I seem to recall that Justice Potter Stewart was not the
senior member of the majority in any case during his first 15 or so
years on the Court or so, and it was only in the middle of the Nixon
administration that he commanded his first majority.

There are two ways in which the Chief Justice, first among equals, can
exert big influence on the Court: one is with the agenda: any justice
can put a case into the list of consideration for Conference, but it
is the Chief Justice that makes the list; so it takes active action by
an Associate Justice to put a case up for discussion, otherwise, the
selection is made by the Chief Justice. The vast majority of cases are
then chosen by the CJ, the rest are not granted certiorari at all.

The second is his ability to assign opinions. This one can be very
effective, for example by assigning an opinion to a shaky member of a
slim majority to "lock his/her vote in" ((s)he is unlikely to change
his/her vote if he is writing for the majority), or by assigning an
opinion to a moderate member and thereby ensuring a 'narrow' opinion.

Arturo Magidin, sans .sig
 >> Stay informed about: Major setback for religious right