It's all, all, all about Roe v Wade.
Through the long and twisted process of the GOP arguing A (when it suited their purpose), then later the Dems agreeing with A (when it suited their purpose), the process of questioning a Supreme Court nominee has become a very convoluted and farcial dance.

You can't ask "do you agree / disagree with Roe v Wade". Not for any necessarily good reason - Republicans said it was a tewwible thing to do when they were trying to get their bozo on the court, later Democrats agreed when they were trying to do the same. So now it's settled - you can't do it.

So the keywords became "stare decisis" - in other words, "I agree with settled law", in other words, with Roe v Wade. Yeah right. It's like coming home to muddy pawprints and garbage all over the couch, but the only thing you can ask the dog is if he was watching Nickolodean again.

OTOH, the 4th District (the most conservative in the nation) has slapped down Bush a number of times lately. So the fact that someone was nominated by a authoritarian butthead and is supported by a crowd of authoritarian buttheads does not necessarily mean that he or she will be an authoritarian butthead. Just likely that they will be.

... is that Roe v Wade issue has been hijacked for convenience. They, the ruling class, don't really care much either way I suspect.

The 'sixties' spawned populist actions and decisions that in their view must be reversed. Too much power went to the people. Roe was indicative of that but, the essence of the decision bothered them little, if at all. Abortion was never hard to get if you had the money and right connections.

And I just don't buy the moral argument of it all. (not that you made one) The last 6 years eviscerates that canard. Roe is merely a nose ring.

to you too for including the f*cking link dasht. /sarcasm

Please understand my bitching about the missing case cite in the spirit it is intended. It was not intended to offend (shock, perhaps, but not offend). Oddly enough, it was intended to hint at a way to improve the Agonists' commercial success by improving the value of the content of front-page posts.

If front-page posts are mostly people looking for the one-up bon mots of ways to insult The Man then there isn't much here. But, if you look at the Agonist in depth? You find there is a lot here.

Mauberly does his patient journaling of economic factoids. Ian is hacking a "world view" -- an analytical framework -- often citing primary sources. I don't follow all of the long-standing threads but from skimming I have the impression that some of those accumulate similar depth. On and on....

I think that that accumulation of data is really valuable. "Journalism" as in "creating a journal" -- a log of evolving circumstance, from a particular perspective. It resembles the traditional archives and research files of newspapers -- but here in a bloggish form. It's the main thing that separates a site like the Agonist from all of the uninteresting purely-echo-chamber-stuff me-too-ism blogs.

In the long term, I think sites like the Agonist, who enjoy that accumulation of sources and analysis, will evolve to better organize and present those archives but, in the meanwhile, we can at least think about blogospheric journalistic standards should apply to what gets entered into these emerging archives.

When primary sources, such as the actual text of relevent SCOTUS opinions, is "embarassingly available online," shouldn't there be a minimum journalistic standard that says such primary sources should be directly linked to in analytic articles?

-t

"Mauberly does his patient journaling of economic factoids."

Dullness inflated to patience. Heh.

Now what the hell was that Greek you put out to Mr Liquid? And where is the link for that? I've had less Greek than Shakespeare. I.e., none.

На следующей неделе, Река Онот, каяк. Я не могу ждать. Москва также??

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

"a 5-to-4 decision last week declaring that a 45-year-old doctrine excusing people whose “unique circumstances” prevented them from meeting court filing deadlines was now “illegitimate”?"

Which would be the decision that you have 180 days from the time "it happened" to bring suit for discrimination, even if it takes you much longer to realize all your peers are getting paid 10x as much as you (say, because it's a firing offense to divulge your salary to a coworker, as applies in many places). And those peers have dicks, but you don't. I assume it will soon apply more broadly, but they had to get the Long John Silver admirer on board first.

that's all I ask. Lemme go read the article you link to and the decision and maybe or maybe not I'll have something (I consider to be) moderately clever to say.

Cheers. Thanks.

-t

The majorty's conclusion is unassailable in this *civil* matter.

I'm not convinced that there is really a precedence issue here. If you understand Harris Truck Lines to be a decision rooted in common law -- and you pretty much have to --, then all the majority is saying is that, in this case, the equity considerations analogous to Harris did not rise to a sufficent level to trump the jurisdictional considerations. That's the nature of common law: it's not formulatic, on purpose. Yawn.

-t

Murder is now a civil matter? Thank God we elected Republicans! They've got their priorities straight!

"Murder is now a civil matter?" GordonMcMillan June 22, 2007 - 10:28pm

I am curious where you derive that pronouncement.

The underlying case is a proceeding in habeas corpus, which went to SCOTUS on a jurisdictional issue. Habeas corpus is a civil matter and not a criminal proceeding. For that matter, habeas corpus is in no sense a continuation of the criminal prosecution. Ergo, it is not about the criminal conviction, since appeals on those issues are surely exhausted if the petitioner has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus.

The courts in this country have been limiting the scope of the writ for decades. This was further exacerbated by the AEDPA of 1996, which imposed limits on the number of successive petitions which could be filed and imposed a one year statute of limitations. That standards imposed by the SOL of the AEDPA and the interpretation of it are extremely unforgiving. Moreover, the AEDPA expanded the federal courts' deference to the state courts' opinions being appealed pursuant to the writ. Bill Clinton said it was one of the most important pieces of legislation he signed as president.

Now, by no means whatsoever, do I support the continued gutting of the writ of habeas corpus by w, et al or any administration, but this crap has been going on for quite some time. So, lay the blame where the blame is due. On all of them.

Nevertheless, habeas corpus, the AEDPA, etc. were not the issues in the case. This was limited to Rule 4 of the Fed. Rules of App. Proc. and the application of the 14 day extension provided for in that rule.

As for the "unique circumstances doctrine" at issue in Bowles, the opinion specifically deals with the history of it and that several courts have questioned its continuing validity. This is not some great precedent that was "overturned", if, in fact, you could call it such. Mostly, it appears to be an interpretation of the statute and appellate filing deadlines. The district judge screwed up and the petitioner's attorney screwed up by not researching the limits imposed by Rule 4 of the FRAP.

As for the direction of the Court, only time will tell. After all, each genesis of the SCOTUS has "overturned" precedents. Despite the doctrine of stare decisis, a law professor once told me that the law is not set in concrete and there are always new and novel approaches to issues previously decided. The law evolves based on numerous factors.

Пока . . .

is clear and leaves me breathless.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

I think you are grasping with that, though.

Stare decisis does *not* mean that whenever the court finds, in some earlier opinion, a general rule that it is therefore obligated to follow that rule mechanically.

It's ironic: this case hinges on the question of "reasonable reliance" of a judicial (mis-)statement about statutory deadlines. The concept of stare decisis is itself largely about a "reasonable reliance" on, at least, the broad strokes of the logic and remembered "rules" the court applies to various cases.

Many decisions throughout society and the courts reasonably rely on at least the broad strokes of the rules in Roe v. Wade. The principle of stare decisis says that, all else being equal, the court must honor that reasonable reliance. Justice Thomas' view notwithstanding, the logic of Roe v. Wade contains no gross constitutional errors. So, stare decisis.

Almost no decisions whatsoever, in society or the courts, reasonably rely on the old opinion that offered a rule for handling judicial mistatements about statutory deadlines. A previous justice did offer a rule and did claim that that is what decided one case -- but the rule hasn't been given much uptake in decades since. There's not much "decision" there to actually "stand".

As regards justice, if our defendant in the case at hand is still looking to be heard by an appelate court, I think he now has a knock-down argument for incompetent representation (as well as other options).

As regards "Republicans" I think you are barking up the wrong tree. There is no hypocrisy on display in this decision.

-t

dasht:

Generally, the Ineffective Assistance of Counsel argument is a common theme in habeas corpus petitions filed with the United States District Courts. Or, even in instances in the state courts. The right to counsel means the right to effective assistance of counsel, and involves the liberty issue, which underlies the predominant number of habeas petitions filed in this country. After all, that is what a habeas involves. Liberty. That is what makes it a civil issue. It is about the confinement, not the conviction. It is about the unconstitutionality of the confinement, and how the inmate arrived there. This includes the ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial level of the criminal case. It can also include the ineffective assistance of counsel at the appellate level. Nevertheless, they are rarely successful. Kinda sucks when there is a good case, because of the problems indicative of the AEDPA. Now, I do not know all the facts of his case, but his argument for ineffective assistance of counsel would probably be precluded by the successive petition preclusion of the AEDPA. Certainly, there are ways around it, but they overrule successive petitions frequently. As I said, it sucks.

liquid

На следующей неделе, Река Онот, каяк. Я не могу ждать. Москва также.