Posted on 06/27/2019 6:59:04 AM PDT by SMGFan
Live blog of opinions | June 27, 2019 Live
We're live-blogging as the Supreme Court releases its final opinions of the term.
SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search the law.
Can you remind us of the official names for the census and gerrymandering cases? by Thehowie 9:53 AM
Maryland gerrymandering = Lamone v. Benisek: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lamone-v-benisek/
North Carolina gerrymandering = Rucho v. Common Cause: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/rucho-v-common-cause-2/
Cnesus = Department of Commerce v. New York: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-commerce-v-new-york/
I can’t help but wonder if there will be a surprise retirement announcement.
Highly unlikely. Who would it be?
The court holds that the exigent-circumstances rule “almost always permits a blood test without a warrant.”
Sotomayor dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Kagan. Gorsuch dissents.
Here’s the opinion in Mitchell v. Wisconsin. Amy will have our analysis:
The court holds that the exigent-circumstances rule “almost always permits a blood test without a warrant.”
“When a breath test is impossible, enforcement of the drunk-driving laws depends upon the administration of a blood test.”
When a driver is unconscious, Alito concludes, “the general rule is that a warrant is not needed.”
Justice Sotomayor in dissent would hold that “there is no categorical exigency exception for blood draws, although exigent circumstances might justify a warrantless blood draw on the facts of a particular case.”
Sotomayor dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Kagan. Gorsuch dissents.
Live blogging?
Something tells me Humble will be here soon to do some live blog hating.
We shall see.
A very few issues should ever go before federal courts; most that are brought by the DemoCommunists should be the complete purview of the states.
Things like designing the questions of the decennial census are a given, the current President and his designates do this. Obama certainly did.
The principal dissent criticizes the majority for relying on “exigent circumstances” because Wisconsin did not argue that exigent circumstances were present in this case.
So, besides storming your home without a warrant, they can storm your body as well?
I can’t shake the feeling that Roberts will stab us in the back.
The Chief Justice has the next opinion, in the partisan gerrymandering cases, which are decided together.
The Chief Justice has the next opinion, in the partisan gerrymandering cases, which are decided together.
Here’s the opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause. Amy will have our analysis:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
The court holds that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
While it almost certainly won’t happen I was sort of thinking Breyer.
The court’s ruling means that courts will not have a role to play in reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.