The Supreme Court of Washington Blog (from the EFF) reports on some interesting statistics for the state Supreme Court so far this year. As might be expected, Justice Sanders is least often in the majority, 72 percent, and has the most dissenting opinions (eight). Alexander and Jim Johnson are tied for second least often, at 79 percent. Only two justices are at over 90 percent agreement with the majority: Owens and Stephens.
but beyond numbers are there any opinions that you think are especially noteworthy, well reasoned, or poorly reasoned?
one doesn't care too much what the numbers are if the court is getting things right.
are they?
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on July 7, 2009 11:21 AMIn the first case I argued, I told Justice Alexander that the Court should rule in my clients' favor because that is what the law required. He smiled. He then proceeded to write the majority opinion that changed the law (based on an issue which the opposing party had raised for the first time in the case in its supplemental brief to the Supreme Court). He then ruled against my client.
If I lose a case, it is almost always for the same reason--the Court (quite improperly) chooses to decide the case based on an issue that the parties did not have the opportunity to fully brief to the Court. This is not only against the Court's rules, it deprives the parties of due process--which requires notice and a fair opportunity to be heard.
When an appellate court reaches an unbriefed issue, they invariably get the analysis of the issue wrong. However, once the decision is issued, it is almost impossible to get the court to consider changing their decision.
Do you ever benefit with a win where the Court has done this in your favor as well?
Can you cite a particular example (perhaps one you were not involved in to maintain anonymity) where this has occurred? This is very interesting.
Posted by: BA on July 7, 2009 04:58 PMBtw, there's no need to change my name in an insulting jocular way, why do you guys persist in that kind of hostility and rudeness?
It's not very gracious, and it's certainly not very original.
"3. Torture Lawyer,with your name does that mean you would defend a terrorist who was so called "tortured""
yes I originally posted the link the to the torture convention which says torture is illegal and any emergency condition is no excuse and that REagan and Bush the dad supported this as well as 2.3 of the USA senate, so if you guys think torture is a good idea, as many conservatives do, you need to have the USA denounce, reject and withdraw from the torture convention, in order to be torturing legally. There's also some USA laws you would need to change.
"or is it because you hate America so much you actually believe that we as a Nation "torture" people and need a "Torture Lawyer"?"
I read conservatives saying all over the place that torture is or would be justified; they are advocating illegal acts; if you want torture as one of the tools to fight terrorism or to catch drunk drivers or mobsters, whatever, you need to make some legal changes to make it legal. The fact that these very correct comments engender your hostility and the view that I hate America says more about you, than me; what I've been saying is true. And if the question is has the ISA committed torture, why yes it has. Waterboarding someone 80 times or 183 times or one time is clearly torture as is the other techniques, there is a definition of torture in that torture convention it's easy to find go look it up if you want.
"Posted by American Patriot at July 7, 2009 01:43 PM" -- another conservative who falsely thinks only conservatives are patriots. Hey dude, I didn't pass the torture convention to be USA law your buddy RONALD REAGAN proposed it to the senate your buddy GEORGE BUSH THE DAD got it passed and 2.3 the senate passed it so I'm standing with them -- not only is that torture convention the law, but it's also a good idea! I guess if that makes me hate america then so did ronald reagan and all those senators.
"5. Thanks for linking to our court stats! For what it's worth, we do a monthly podcast reviewing some of the WA Sup Ct's notable decisions here: Supreme Court of Washington Podcast. Posted by Reitz at July 7, 2009 02:54 PM"
A very cool web site, the courts clearly need more attention and commentary byt he public....we elect these folks after all.
"I told Justice Alexander that the Court should rule in my clients' favor because that is what the law required."
If I were a judge I would be very bored, and uninformed by this "Argument."
"He smiled." No doubt thinking you had made a totally lame argument.
"He then proceeded to write the majority opinion that changed the law (based on an issue which the opposing party had raised for the first time in the case in its supplemental brief to the Supreme Court). He then ruled against my client."
Without the case citation or the opinion, we can't judge whether he did a good job or not. You know the case citation why not post it?
"If I lose a case, it is almost always for the same reason--the Court (quite improperly) chooses to decide the case based on an issue that the parties did not have the opportunity to fully brief to the Court. This is not only against the Court's rules, it deprives the parties of due process--which requires notice and a fair opportunity to be heard." I am sure this happens quite a lot but as a lawyer you should know you're supposed to show, not tell, and it would take you 5 minutes to post the case cites or the key passages. You're asking us to just believe you with no info.
"When an appellate court reaches an unbriefed issue, they invariably get the analysis of the issue wrong. However, once the decision is issued, it is almost impossible to get the court to consider changing their decision." You make a good point... very concerning, this issue is...so if you want people to get behind you to see it as an issue, perhaps you should cite some opinions where that has happened?
"8. Matt, where does the Court derive the issues that are not fully briefed as you describe?
Do you ever benefit with a win where the Court has done this in your favor as well?
Can you cite a particular example (perhaps one you were not involved in to maintain anonymity) where this has occurred? This is very interesting."
Very good questions. Discussing this stuff in the abstract is basically useless and let me say this pudge:
I feel the numerical type data you quoted is pretty useless unless you point to actual decisions and the actual reasoning and then people can evaluate things.
For example, conservatives say the foundation fo our system is property and the free market and judges not making up laws, right? Well, once upon a time there was this case and the supreme court said the missouri compromise was illegal; that slaves in the territories were property; and that the national laws and the national government had to respect that. There wasn't ANY law at all making slaves property in the territories, btw. And, they obviously put property of servitude above the natural law of freedom.....and if you were going by the constitution it was basically silent. English common law outlawed slavery in an "activist" decision by Lord Mansfield, his reasoning was something along the lines of "tehere's no air in England that one in bondage can breathe" or some euqally poetic type nonoargument, he just thought slavery was bad. Maybe you think that was a bad decision since he made up the law! Maybe you think the Dred Scott case was well decided. But for most of us until you give us the facts, the laws and the iswsue, all this talk about courts is just conclusions and people don't know what the heck it's based on....
so feel free anyone, if you want to talk about the supreme court cite an opinion and yes, by all means, have an opinion yourself. I haven't read nay of the latest ones btw....except that I read in the paper that Sanders had a pending case on his own public disclosures requests then he ruled on Yousouffian's case (sp??) in a way that helped his own case! That seems pretty wrong to me! Total conflict of interest. So now they have to have a do over. Not very judicial of him, I'd say. And he's trying to bill the taxpayers for paying his own legal bills, too!!!!!! I don't quite get how he can sit on a case that will enhance the value of his own personal asset, a pending case of the same kind.....he said he wouldn't get the money or something, but that doesn't mean it won't help his lawyers for their fees or it it isn't connected to him somehow.
Anyway, I guess the connection between that and the whole torture lawyer thing is all these blogs talk about all these issues and never actually quote the law involved, so when I looked up the torture convention, first of all it was clear it applies to anyone -- not just POWS --- and it was crystal clear they had thought of that whole national emergency/terrorists have a ticking time bomb/raison d'etat rationale == and specifically said it's no excuse! Quite a surprise after hearing soooo many conservatives say hell yes they are glad we tortured or they wish we'd torture more! Even Chris Mathews accepted torture!
So folks, if you want torture, you gotta change the laws, to make it legal.
Btw -- there's no charge for this advice.
The really funny thing is, nobody is out there saying let's withdraw from the torture convention, the way you would think they would do, if they actually believed what they said they believed.
I guess at bottom the pro torture folks don't really believe in it.
Btw of course many conservatives are not in favor of torture, too.
Yes, we are all sooooo grateful for your kind mercies.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 8, 2009 06:32 AMYou say I falsely accused "others" and as to that, I can't respond, as I don't know who you mean. Um, if I said something wrong, then it was wrong~!
I stand by prior statements that yes, indeed, there are plenty of folks who are pro torture; they say quite clearly that to deal with certain threats it would be proper and needed....
I stand by what I said with direct quotation of the plain words of the law, which is that this is clearly illegal under that convention, so IF you believe in it or want it THEN you need to get rid of that treaty obligation, to make it legal.
That would be important, wouldn't it, so that CIA officers or the army or whoever would actually, you know, be able to torture, without fear of doing something illegal (assuming you wanted them to be able to conduct torture).
Knowing the clear and basic law seems kind of important....if you're against torture, then this law says it's illegal even in emergencies; if you're for it, this law says it's illegal even in emergencies and you'd want to change that law pronto!
Not sure why it's so "torturous" to have this clear and basic law discussed.
I really don't think people should operate in the dark, legally speaking.
So does John McCain, who is anti-torture. Your concept of the world is too small.
IF you believe in it or want it THEN you need to get rid of that treaty obligation, to make it legal.
False. You can do what McCain has said -- which you should know if you have really been following this issue and the debate around it, but you obviously don't -- which is to keep it illegal, but then it is needed, do it, and let the system decide what to do after the fact. The Executive of the United States has tremendous power, including the power to violate the law. The Congress and the people can decide what to do if the Executive does break the law. They may decide it was justified.
You're right that as a general rule, for CIA and Army interrogators, we should have clear guidelines ... and we do. But the President retains the power to go beyond, and to be held accountable for his actions.
Not sure why it's so "torturous" to have this clear and basic law discussed.
Because you don't understand law ... you're certainly no lawyer. Because you go on and on making poor arguments with weak rhetoric. Because you repeat yourself incessantly.
It's your form more than your content. Although your content has many flaws too.
To me the ideal court has a variety of viewpoints. This is the reason for having multiple justices. With a homogeneous court, it might as well be a single justice. With a mixture of viewpoints, the lawyers who present have to do a lot more effort to address all the potential viewpoints, which, in my mind, does a lot more thorough job of evaluating the law and its application.
Posted by: tc on July 8, 2009 12:32 PMMost cases in the U.S. Supreme Court are also unanimous, or 8-1, 7-2. Further, to the extent the state court is of more unanimity, it is more about what TYPE of cases get to each court than it is about the diversity of opinion on the court. For example, cases are much more likely to only be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court if there's significant disagreement in lower courts, whereas the State court will more often hear a case just to correct a wrong decision.
Decisions by Final Vote 08, 07, 06, 05:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/vote2.pdf
That I was right. C'mon, tc. What did I say? "Most cases in the U.S. Supreme Court are also unanimous, or 8-1, 7-2." That means that more than 50 percent of decisions are one of those three. In 2008, those combine for 54.5%. In 2007, 66%. In 2006, 62%. In 2005, 72%.
So -- as I said -- most decisions are unanimous, 8-1, or 7-2.
You say a "split decision ... is the second most common" result. I was not talking about the second most common result. I was talking about what most results are.
What part of this do you have a problem with?
More decisions are made on a 5-4 or 6-3 vote than unanimously or with an 8-1 vote.
So Pudge, while what you said is factually correct - you are suggesting greater agreement by the Justices than the decisions actually represent.
I'm surprised that you reached this false conclusion, you're usually better than that.
Posted by: BA on July 8, 2009 05:07 PMYes, it is.
you are suggesting greater agreement by the Justices than the decisions actually represent.
No, in fact, I am not.
I'm surprised that you reached this false conclusion
I am surprised you are so clearly misrepresenting me. I defy you to quote me expressing any false conclusion.
You didn't agree with them, instead you said "Most cases in the U.S. Supreme Court are also unanimous, or 8-1, 7-2." That means that more than 50 percent of decisions are one of those three." You went on to state that "I was not talking about the second most common result. I was talking about what most results are."
Which of course your conclusion remains wrong. There are five possible results. You chose three starting from one end of the scale. That choice does not represent what "most" of the results are at all.
It is the three results starting from the other end of the scale.
I just quoted you expressing a false conclusion.
Posted by: BA on July 8, 2009 06:51 PMIn fact, you are.
unless you intended to agree when two folks said that the Supreme Court was more often divided than split
Divided THAN split? Not sure what you mean. Perhaps you mean divided than united? I consider 7-2 relatively united, rather than divided. So do most SCOTUS-watchers. It's the 6-3 and 5-4 decisions that are considered to be divided. So unless you consider 7-2 to be divided (as most people do not), it is simply not the case that SCOTUS is more divided than united. But if you do ... more power to you. It is not wrong of me to consider it otherwise.
Regardless, no one made that point, so it couldn't have been something I was agreeing with or not. The point tc made was that "the Washington Supreme Court is very homogeneous in its viewpoint. This is the opposite of the US Supreme Court that has a lot more 5-4 decision."
That is -- as I read it -- he was making one primary point, that the state court has less diversity of opinion than the SCOTUS. He based this on the notion that the SCOTUS is split much more often than the state court is. I implicitly agreed that it is more often divided, by giving a reason why it is so: because of "what TYPE of cases get to each court," rather than "the diversity of opinion on the court."
I noted the numbers just to point out that the SCOTUS decisions are not "the opposite" of the state decisions, that the difference between unanimity at the state level and federal level is not as great as he appears to think it is, which would require about 75 percent or so of the decisions to be split, which is not the case (even if you include 7-2 decisions as split).
And because of this, I called into question -- without agreeing or disagreeing with -- his conclusion that the state court has less diversity of opinion: the difference in stats is not as great as he said (it's not "the opposite"), and the courts hear different kinds of cases which skew those stats toward more potential for disagreement at the SCOTUS level.
I just quoted you expressing a false conclusion.
No, in fact, you didn't. What you did is assume I was coming to a conclusion that I didn't come to.
As usual, BA, it seems you just want to start a fight with me. So you misread what I write and make up things I didn't say. Bully for you.
Not interested in starting a fight with you - just pointed out your a bit math challenged - many folks are.
You can write reams of words, but bottom line - your math was wrong.
As usual you just don't have the maturity to man up to to an error.
Pick a fight? Nope. 2+2 equals 4 in my world, in yours it doesn't - I don't care about your world as long as you have no fiduciary role in mine.
I didn't misread what you said, I didn't make up things you didn't say. This is your blog post - if truth isn't important to you so be it.
Posted by: BA on July 8, 2009 10:18 PMNo, in fact, you agreed with my math. Please don't lie. You said that "what you said is factually correct," but that what I was "suggesting" was wrong. Except I wasn't suggesting any such thing: I was just stating a fact (which you admitted was correct).
Analysis of the outcomes from a statistical perspective is best approached by understanding the skew from a standard normal distribution.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 9, 2009 06:11 AMWhen the "revolution starts" blowhards like you will be no where to be found.
FYI - funny how a patriot like yourself puts those 3 groups above al-qaeda as the most wanted. Says it all pal.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 9, 2009 12:59 PMRegardless of our differences or our inclination to disagree with one another, I am sincerely grateful for your removal of the deeply offensive comments posted by American Patriot.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 10, 2009 05:42 AMI hope he doesn't have to do this often - I'm sure he'd rather not have to waste his time.
BoyScoutBoy at #26 is singularly impressed with his ability to put words together that mean absolutely nothing.
Unkl Hogwash is as usual pandering.
BA disagrees only because he is slavishly committed to points of view that are fundamentally idiotic and that he acquired without any reasoning whatsoever for himself. All three come here to dump nonsense on their adversaries turf and consistently prove themselves well beyond acquiring any better final understanding.
Finally after American Patriot made his contribution, this thread actually consists of something more than droning contentious circular irrelevancies.
Now the liberal twerps act like innocent bystanders to an accident trying to kiss the cops ass by giving thier useless version of what is already obvious.
Liberals are amusingly smug pointy-headed little bastards.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 10, 2009 08:56 AM