ConfirmThem

you have provided excellent analysis Curt. I look forward to others weighing in.

which Justice didn't vote? From Breitbart, linked at Drudge:

But in a five-three decision, the Supreme Court found that schools "may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."

They probably mean Breyer who filed an opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part.

all 9 were in. Breyer wrote a decision concurring in the judgement, I think, so maybe he's the one they're not counting.

but even so it pretty much killed this aspect of CFR didn't it? It sounds like it's okay to say anything as long as you manage to do it in such a way that you are not calling on people to vote for a particular person. That's a pretty easy standard to meet, isn't it?

but thanks for the explanations. So because Breyer cancels himself out, his vote isn't counted?

I am not sure what you are talking about. Four of the cases today were decided 5-4. One was 7-2. Breyer's vote counted in all five cases.

Thinking about how wonderful John Roberts is and how wonderful it is to have him and Alito on the court. :-)

I just can't wait for Allison Eid, Margaret Ryan, Miguel Estrada, Jim Chen, and Ted Cruz to join them on the court! :-)

There was some report that Bong Hits was decided 5-3. Classic was referring to that report.

interestingly, I find myself liking the Roberts/Scalia majority, and finding both the Thomas and Breyer concurrences rather persuasive for different reasons (Thomas as always makes eminent sense, but as always he wants to put back in the bottle genies I'm afraid probably no longer fit; Breyer correctly notes that the distinction between advocating drug use and advocating legalization of drug use is basically nonexistant, though I imagine we'd disagree on the proper action to be taken on coming to that conclusion; in addition, his solution is probably closest to the one I advocated back when as far as the result goes, but Thomas' concurrence forces me to consider that my own position, not to mention Breyer's milder one, is probably insufficient in the larger picture of enforcing school discipline, and I think Roberts is probably right that answering only the qualified immunity claim is insufficient...I might find myself agreeing with Breyer's result for Thomas' reasoning if that makes any sense...Roberts probably comes down somewhere in the middle, so it works for me). while I understand the direction of the concern in the Alito/Kennedy opinion, it is a bit too limited IMO.

Roberts rocks!

though I still say we'll have to wait for the kiddies you list to get their shot :) Paul Clement, Ted Cruz, or Allison Eid to replace Scalia in 10 years.

in the meantime, and especially if we get Christmas in July this year, there are plenty of 50- and early-60-somethings we can - and will have to - turn to in order to navigate the minefield that is the current Senate.

I agree with something helveticus wrote in an earlier thread. Today, Scalia went after both Alito and Roberts in different opinions. He needs to shut up so that he doesn't alienate the two people he needs the most in order to continue being in the majority. It makes no sense alienating one's allies in a war (the war of conservatism vs. liberalism). I love the five person alliance we now have, and I don't want Scalia's sarcasm messing things up.

our 5-man rotation's pretty darn good. but let's hope we'll soon be singing the praises of a 6-man/woman rotation that we'll like even better :D

I don't think Scalia (who was joined by Thomas in the opinion from the prior post cited) went to far in his criticism of minimalism in the Hein case. These are adult legal scholars with entrenched judicial philosophies, and I honestly don't think that critical input from another conservative point of view would hurt anyone's feelings. Only Kennedy would be so fickle as to be affected by the popularity contest the media likes to play with the Court. Roberts and Alito have both been steadfast through some pretty whithering criticisms of the left, the media, and others. I just can't see them taking a legitimate legal criticism personal in that way. Just because someone disagrees with the "why" of an outcome, does not mean that a relationship would be soured.

Kennedy is the only one we need to worry about Scalia soft-peddling because he really is the one who could bolt. If Roberts is smart, he has already told Scalia that he is not to have any contact with Kennedy except to exchange pleasantries! LOL

Alito and Roberts are big boys and they can handle Scalia. Roberts, especially, has been dealing with Scalia as an advocate for a decade. Besides, he and Scalia seem to be getting along famously anyway.

Scalia risks looking like a common schoolyard bully if he gets too agressive with the mild-mannered, polite, and imminently intelligent Alito. That won't change Alito, though.

I can't WAIT until Thursday! :-)

I don't want Scalia's sarcasm to push anyone away either. He seems to have done this in the past.

However, I don't think Scalia's sarcasm is unique. Consider the behaviour of the libs on the court, who are given to reading dissents from the bench (which is just really a form of theatrics), and refusing to sign dissents "respectfuly submitted".

Roberts and Alito may even be the "good cop" to Scalia's "bad cop". Whatever is happening, we're winning the opinions and that's what counts.

Also (from a non-lawyer) it seems to me that the case wasn't a facial challenge to McConell, and thus the proper ruling should have been narrow (as it was). It also seems to me that Roberts left the door open by hinting the full CFR issue could be looked into with the proper case.

Am I correct?

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

You should only be fearful of the effects of Scalia's criticisms on Roberts and Alito if you believe they can be influenced by such criticisms. I do not believe they can be. Unlike O'Connor and Souter, who had no overarching, thought-out judicial philosophies before they became judges, both Roberts and Alito clearly have sophisticated and grounded conceptions of the law and their roles as judges. I do not think Scalia can negatively impact them.

It's the end of the term. I doubt anything Scalia says now will be remembered next year.