• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Trial Lawyers Called Out | Main | Under Seal? »

March 27, 2007



Um, your whole second paragraph doesn't follow. Your proposition is that even where the Court decides cases narrowly, as in Limtiaco, it's having trouble staying unanimous. You then cite Justice Thomas's statement about the "unique" circumstances of that case. But Justice Thomas's statement is referring to the Court's first holding (that the petition for cert was timely filed). And the Court WAS unanimous on this holding. It's only on the merits of the case -- which are not what Justice Thomas was talking about when he cited "unique" circumstances -- where the Court split.

Therefore, while unanimity as a whole is a different question, there's no basis for pointing to Limtiaco and saying that the Court can't even hold it together on narrow grounds. Next time, consider a more apposite example.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad