Skip to main content

View Diary: Idiot governor of Arizona celebrates SCOTUS decision to sort of uphold racial profiling (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm still confused as to if Roberts knew which way (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cazcee

    Kennedy was coming down on this. It seems odd he split from the conservatives on this, but looking at what the prior ruling was, a 4-4 decision would have pretty much taking care of the whole law, not leaving this ambiguity. Something tells me Roberts participated in some serious tomfoolery here.

    •  With my normal disclaimer.............. (0+ / 0-)

      of “I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong:” I will attempt to address your concern.

      As I recall from what I read a long time ago on the inners workings of the Supreme Court; the positions taken by the justices on an issue are not secret. So, yes Roberts knew Kennedy’s position on the ruling.

      After all the oral arguments and briefs in and reviewed; the justices are polled as to their position. Once the preliminary majority/minority spilt of the justices is known; I believe the Chief Justice then decides which justices will be responsible for the preparation of the majority report and the dissent. The chief justice can appoint himself to write either.

      During the writing of the majority and dissident; all the justices have the opportunity to review both and sometimes based on the arguments put forth in support of or dissent from a position; justices can flip.  The gist of the process is that, in most cases, each of the 9 members of the panel will “sign off on” either the majority report or the dissent which gives the final split that is published with the court’s verdict.

      During the course of the Court’s deliberations justices can and do change their positions but it is not a secret.  While the possibility of “hanky-panky” is strong with the current SCOTUS; I don’t think that there is any evidence of any here

      The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

      by cazcee on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:48:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Roberts is pro-business, and the way I read (0+ / 0-)

      the ruling, part of it was Arizona can not decide that it is against the law to work or seek work in AZ. It sounds to me as if he is looking out for those argribussiness in AZ who make huge profits from drawing on the pool of undocumented workers. The fact that it is good for undocumented workers is just ancillary, the fact that it is good for business profts, I think was his motive. The reason he is there is to protect the intersts of business, no matter what. That is the reason, perhaps the mandates will be upheld, good for business.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site