elwen: (law talk)
[personal profile] elwen
Somehow, it's not as fun when you know what opinions are coming down...

I haven't had a chance to read Bilski, but I was right that it wasn't going to give us more than KSR did. (I guess it almost did, if Stevens had been able to keep his majority. It's too bad. Not that I necessarily would have wanted it to come out as Stevens wrote it -- like I said, I haven't read it so I don't know -- but it would have been nice to have an answer, any answer.)

Of course, my prediction was not recorded anywhere before the opinion came down, so I could just be nodding sagely and saying, "I knew it all along." I did (apparently) get wrong why it took so long, though. I figured they were just chugging along on the opinion and then got sidetracked when more interesting cases like Christian Legal Society came along.

But in the end no one cared about Christian Legal Society beacuse they were too busy waiting to see how McDonald came out. As if there was any question?

The only surprise to me there is Thomas sticking to his originalist guns and putting forward Privileges and Immunities. P&I FTW! Why are the rest of them so insistent on keeping alive the Slaughterhouse Cases?

Anyway, enough obscure court-watching talk from me. I guess the takeaway lesson, as always, is that Supreme Court opinions are hardly ever satisfying. They just leave tons of questions for the poor lower courts to hash out. Ganbare, CAFC!
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

elwen: (Default)
elwen

March 2015

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Jul. 12th, 2025 09:53 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios