November 30, 2009
Justice Breyer doesn't wear a wig or fancy robes
Your blogger recently interviewed Justice Stephen G. Breyer about the U.K. Supreme Court. The justice attended the court’s opening ceremony in October. The resulting article is in today’s Daily Journal (subscribers only).
Here’s a taster:
DJ: Did the British justices have their ceremonial robes on?
Breyer: They were wearing ceremonial robes.
DJ: How did you like the robes they have? They are considerably more ornate than yours.
Breyer: Well they have gold in them. We have plain black robes. We were not wearing robes. Most of the other countries have elaborate robes. We did not wear robes at all. We normally don’t wear robes when we’re not in court.
DJ: Did you get any fashion tips? No ermine or anything?
Breyer: None we are going to adopt. I think I said to someone – he said: “Why don’t you have robes?” I said: “We fought a revolution against that.” And he said: “Well, that was rather bad luck for you.”
DJ: The U.K. justices are not wearing wigs any more though.
Breyer: I guess they are not. We have never worn wigs. Perhaps that would be a benefit to me as I don’t have much hair.
November 25, 2009
This BBC story about a U.K. Supreme Court ruling includes TV footage of the chief justice reading a summary of the court’s opinion. As readers are aware, the U.S. Supreme Court allows no cameras in the courtroom at any time.
Are you watching, Chief Justice Roberts and company?
November 24, 2009
You can subscribe to Washington Briefs here.
November 18, 2009
Justice Kennedy
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy clearly wasn’t happy with last week’s New York Times story in which the paper’s Supreme Court reporter, Adam Liptak, revealed that Kennedy’s office had asked a school newspaper to show him a copy of an article before it could be published.
In an interview published today in the Wall Street Journal, written by its Supreme Court reporter, Jess Bravin, Kennedy condemned Liptak’s article as a “stupid story” while admitting that a new employee in his office had “misunderstood” his usual policy of barring outside media from classroom events but allowing school media to attend.
Kennedy spoke to students during a visit to posh New York school Dalton. The story about the restrictions imposed on the school newspaper ran on the front page of the New York Times. For the record, the Wall Street Journal story ran on page six.
November 17, 2009
It’s not every day that individual lawyers get a ringing endorsement from the U.S. Supreme Court. But that’s what happened to Stockton, Calif.-based defense lawyer John Schick yesterday. In a per curiam opinion, the court stated decisively that Schick was not guilty of inneffective assistance of counsel when he represented convicted murderer Fernando Belmontes at trial almost 30 years ago.
In a report in today’s Daily Journal (subscribers only), your blogger asked Schick how he felt about the ruling and the 9th Circuit opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, which the justices summarily reversed. This is what he said:
Schick, Belmontes’ former lawyer, said in an interview Monday he wasn’t surprised by the Supreme Court decision due to obvious flaws in Reinhardt’s reasoning.
“It was not a really well reasoned opinion,” he said. “He [Reinhardt] may not have been thinking as clearly as he should have been.”
As for his original mitigation strategy, Schick conceded that it was “nice to know that the highest court in the land agrees with me.”
He also revealed that Belmontes had been offered a plea bargain before going to trial but had refused a sentence of life without parole in part because a death sentence offers the possibility of “a lot more appeal action.”
November 9, 2009
The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the concept that “death is different.” The phrase — and various versions of it — took center stage at today’s double-header argument on juvenile life without parole (Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida).
Everyone involved wanted a piece of it.
The famous “death is different” phrase was uttered by no fewer than three justices (Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.) as well as defendant Terrance Graham’s attorney. Several variations on the theme also came up, reflecting the weighty issues the justices were addressing:
“Juveniles are different,” said Roberts.
“Kids are different,” added the lawyer for juvenile defendant Joe Sullivan.
“Murder is different,” chimed in Graham’s lawyer.
“Adolescents are different,” he added in response to a question from Roberts.
Whether or not life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicide offense is sufficiently “different” to be found unconstitutional remains to be seen.
October 27, 2009
Last week, the Supreme Court stopped the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals from authorizing the release of the names of people who signed a petition to put Referendum 71, Washington state’s equivalent of Proposition 8, on the November ballot. If it passes the ballot initiative would repeal the state’s recently passed same sex domestic partnership law.
Stephen Colbert takes it up here.
October 16, 2009
Her Majesty
Not that they are suckers for pageantry or anything, but three U.S. Supreme Court justices tagged along when the U.K. Supreme Court was opened earlier
today. They rubbed shoulders with the likes of Queen Elizabeth II, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Archbishop of Canterbury (none of that separation of church and state nonsense back in the old country).
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer also had the chance to chat with a bunch of judges from other countries, including the top judges from France, Germany and other European countries. Also in attendance were chief justices from various remote areas with British links, such as the Falkland Islands and the Pitcairn Islands.
Video is available here, although none of the U.S. contingent appeared to have speaking roles.
October 15, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court public information office just issued a release stating that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized again Wednesday night after “an apparent adverse reaction to a sleeping aid combined with cold medication” that she took before boarding a flight to London. The justice “experienced extreme drowsiness causing her to fall from her seat,” the release said. She was taken to Washington Hospital Center “as a precaution” and, after staying overnight, was released this morning.
Ginsburg was on her way to London for the official opening of the new U.K. Supreme Court along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Justice Antonin Scalia. Breyer was the only one of the other justices to be on the same flight. He disembarked with Ginsburg but then took a later flight to London, according to the court.
This is the second time in the last month that Ginsburg, who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer early this year, has been hospitalized.
October 14, 2009
If you thought Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s remarks about judges being umpires who are “servants of the law” was just a cute soundbite designed to win confirmation to the Supreme Court, then think again.
Although not talking about judges, he touched upon a related issue about whether lawyers can affect the outcome of cases at this morning’s argument. It was a case concerning whether public interest lawyers can get enhanced attorneys’ fees based purely on exceptional performance (Perdue v. Kenny).
Roberts seemed to be questioning whether lawyers really make much difference because it’s only the law itself that matters.
“I don’t understand the concept of extraordinary success or results obtained,” said Roberts, who was an extraordinarily successful appellate lawyer earlier in his career. “The results that are obtained are presumably the results that are dictated or … required under the law.”
He went on to say that cases are resolved on the law and not on whether the parties involved have good or bad attorneys.
“The results obtained under our theory should be what the law requires and not different results because you have different lawyers,” he added.
Paul Clement, a former solicitor general during the Bush administration who was representing the public interest lawyers that won the enhanced fees, took the bait.
“Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I mean, I defer to you , but I’m not sure that comports with my experience,” he responded.
In Clement’s view “the quality of the performance and the results obtained do depend on the lawyers’ performance.”
That led to the following exchange in which Clement touched upon Roberts’ earlier career as a highly-paid advocate:
Roberts: Maybe we have a different perspective. You think the lawyers are responsible for a good result and I think the judges are.
Clement: And maybe your perspective has changed, Your Honor.
Cue laughter. But the debating contest wasn’t over. Next, Roberts – perhaps in a dig at Clement’s own involvement in the case – questioned whether other factors should be taken into account when considering fees, such as when a law firm takes on a high-profile case to improve its image. Some even offer to do the work pro bono, he added. Clement conceded the point but had another punchline ready:
“Sometimes, I think you get what you pay for,” he said. “But that’s a different subject.”
