At this moment, the top rated diary on the Rec List claims that the Supreme Court rejected Arizona's law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.
The diary is based on a misunderstanding of Supreme Court procedure and spreads false information. I urge the diarist to take it down or change the title and update the diary.
The Supreme Court merely refused to grant a stay of the law pending while it makes its way to the court. The vote of the justices indicates nothing about how they view the merits of the case. The vote indicates only that the justices do not view the situation as an emergency and prefer to allow the case to make it's way
Stays are unusual; they require that irreparable harm will result if the stay is not granted. The Court prefers that cases make their way to the Court following normal procedure.
A justice's vote on a stay application does not indicate how he or she will vote when the case makes it's way to the Supreme Court.
Here is what the Supreme Court says about stays:
Case law has established four general criteria thatThe order of the Court, denying a stay, means nothing. It is not a ruling, it is not precedent, it does not address the merits,and it does not indicate how the Justices will vote when the case reaches them.
the applicant normally must satisfy in order for the
Court to grant a stay. They are:
1. that there is a “reasonable probability” that four
Justices will grant certiorari, or agree to review
the merits of the case;
2. that there is a “fair prospect” that a majority of
the Cour t wi l l conc lude upon revi ew that the
decision below on the merits was erroneous;
3. that irreparable harm will result from the denial
of the stay;
4. finally, in a close case, the Circuit Justice may
f ind i t appropr iat e to balanc e the equi t i e s , by
e x p l o r i n g t h e re l a t i v e h a rms t o t h e a p p l i c a n t
and respondent, as well as the interests of the pub
lic at large.
Mr Diarist, tear that diary down!