Patterico's Pontifications

5/1/2007

We had the “Halley’s Comet” of Supreme Court lineups yesterday

Filed under: Law — WLS @ 4:46 pm



[Posted by WLS] 

In United Haulers Assn Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, a 6-3 decision with the following lineup in the vote: 

Majority Op by Roberts, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer,  with Scalia and Thomas each writing separate concurrences. 

Dissent by Alito, joined by Kennedy and Stevens

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1345.pdf 

Go find another one like that.

Its really an interesting case concerning the extent to which a municipality can interfere with private commerce and not violate the Commerce Clause when the municipality is operating a for-profit business in the form of a fee based municipal service. 

Note:  I had to edit this to get the lineup correct, as noted below in a comment by James B.  Thanks to him for not making it too embarrassing for me when pointing out my mistake.

— WLS

7 Responses to “We had the “Halley’s Comet” of Supreme Court lineups yesterday”

  1. Go find another one like that.

    Since one or two of the Justices haven’t been on the bench all that long, I’m pretty sure we won’t be able to… 😉

    Scott Jacobs (e3904e) — 5/1/2007 @ 4:51 pm

  2. Actually even this one is not like that, the dissenters were actually Alito, Stevens and Kennedy.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/1/2007 @ 5:11 pm

  3. Holy Cow — James B. has caught me working completely from memory rather than simply looking back at the lineup before I posted. I checked out the case yesterday afternoon, and never looked back today other than to get the link.

    Not only do I have the lineup wrong, I’ve got it at 5-3.

    Now I’m really embarrassed.

    WLS (077d0d) — 5/1/2007 @ 5:36 pm

  4. So much for voting party lines. I like what this says about the make up of the Supremes. It shows they follow their own minds.

    papertiger (e7adac) — 5/1/2007 @ 8:19 pm

  5. Something exists in Herkimer other than the “diamond” mine? Color me amazed.

    Taltos (c99804) — 5/1/2007 @ 11:36 pm

  6. From the introduction to the Court’s opinion:

    “ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II–D. SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined that opinion in full. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring as to Parts I and II–A through II–C. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and KENNEDY, JJ., joined.”

    Even the introduction reads like a divorce decree or a 1960’s commercial contract. I feel sorry for the clerks that worked on this opinion.

    DRJ (40716e) — 5/2/2007 @ 10:23 am

  7. Even the introduction reads like a divorce decree or a 1960’s commercial contract. I feel sorry for the clerks that worked on this opinion.

    Sounds more like Johnny Cash and his “Caddy”…

    Scott Jacobs (e3904e) — 5/2/2007 @ 2:43 pm


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0757 secs.