Per curium order w/multiple concurring ops saying they join order for sake of issuing judgement. cf Souter in Hamdi?https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/675385513281462276 …
-
-
Replying to @JoshABlock
@JoshACLU But, again, the point is premised on the idea that there are three different judgments being sought, and no majority for any.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@JoshACLU Even if the more liberal justices joined Kennedy in supporting a remand, it's still 4-4. You'd need the chief to join it, too.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner yeah it would be concurrences from right and left. Otherwise no majority to do anything which means affirmance by default1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoshABlock
@JoshACLU Thanks, Josh. I'm aware of that, as is Dorf, and his piece discusses why that's dumb in this situation.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner Yeah, of course you (and Dorf) know! I was just speculating they would do it by per curiam order.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoshABlock
@JoshACLU Right. I just don't know how they get to 5. Unless the chief is willing to concur in judgment on a per curium.3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@JoshACLU per curiam (autocorrect turned it into incorrect, why!)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.