Comments on: Justice Sotomayor, Civil Procedure, and the “Tradition” of Unanimous Debut Opinions

By: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » A Tradition Of Unanimity For Debut Supreme Court Opinions?

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:46:09 +0000

[...] has not been uniform, even during the time of the Rehnquist Court. As noted by Adam Steinman at Concurring Opinions, Justice O’Connor wrote a concurrence to, and Justice Scalia wrote a dissent from, Justice [...]

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:33:58 +0000

“Then again, Justice Breyer went on to serve a remarkably long tenure as the Court’s most junior Justice. Could there be a “Curse of the Nonunanimous Debut Opinion”?”

That a justice has had a long tenure as the Court’s most junior justice is another way of saying that the justices have all remained in good health for a long period of time. Doesn’t sound like a “curse” to me.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:34:50 +0000

As you note, the ‘precedent’ was exaggerated, as noted as far back at “The Brethren” when Justice Blackmun’s first opinion was lambasted by Marshall.

Thomas didn’t criticize “Sotomayor” as some seem to imply but a certain precedent which she (and seven others) cited. Sotomayor noted during her hearings that she made sure to explain her reasoning, including responding to the other side of the argument, in her opinions. So, Thomas’ opinion should be appreciated by her as a “welcome Sonia” moment.

By: Thursday Round-up | SCOTUSblog

Thursday Round-up | SCOTUSblog — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:39:16 +0000

[...] from earlier in the week continue to garner attention. Concurring Opinions has a post from Adam Kleinman on Tuesday’s opinion in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, an [...]

By: Howard Wasserman

Howard Wasserman — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:28:47 +0000

I just posted this at Faculty Lounge, but I will repeat it here: I did not read Thomas as taking a swipe at Sotomayor, as much as taking a swipe at the Collateral Order Doctrine as a legal rule that is illegitimate (given recent developments such as § 1292(b)), unnecessary, and too value-driven. He was not disagreeing with Sotomayor’s analysis as much as the Court’s (as a whole) continued adherence to a bad legal rule.