The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Thomas Beats Out Justice Ginsburg for First Signed Opinion of OT 2019
The Notorious RBG is a notoriously quick opinion writer, but not this year.
This morning, the Supreme Court released the first signed opinion of the term in an argued case in Rotkiske v. Klemm, a case concerning the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Although the subject matter of this case may not sound particularly exciting, there are several notable things about today's opinion.
First, Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the court. This is notable because Justice Ginsburg is often the first justice to issue a signed opinion in an argued case. Indeed, this is the first time since OT 2015 that the first opinion in an argued case was not written by RBG.
Second, Rotkiske was not unanimous. Rather, it was 8-1. Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate concurrence and Justice Ginsburg wrote an opinion dissenting-in-part and dissenting in the judgment. So while she didn't have the first opinion for the Court, Justice Ginsburg did get write the term's first dissent in an argued case.
The lack of unanimity in Rotkiske is interesting because early opinions are usually unanimous opinions. After all, it's easier to finalize an opinion when the answer is clear and there's no need for extensive back-and-forth among the justices. So it's unusual for the first opinion to come in a case that splits the Court and produces multiple opinions. Early Per Curiam opinions are no surprise. Early divided opinions are.
Rotkiske was the only decision released today, but word is there could be more tomorrow.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Psst. Ginsburg is right.
" . . . but word is there could be more tomorrow . . . "
A leak? Anonymous source(s)?
Why no mention of the citation of co-blogger Bray's amicus brief in today's Ginsburg dissent (page 5)?
Tell me not-at-all-hoping-someone-dies doctor, what your basis for concluding that she is "terminally ill" is?
It's "Ginsburg," with a "u," not "Ginsberg," with an "e." I know all those Jewish names sound alike, but still.....
She's 86.
Do you really think it would be a good decision to fill the seat next year after all that stuff McConnell and Republicans said about giving the American people the choice? Do you honestly think that?
He literally said:
"The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be."
I know McConnell doesn't have enough shame, but wouldn't you at least be a little bit embarrassed if you used that rhetoric to defend the decision and then decided it didn't matter?
So its just about power rather than principle, got it.
Your "principle" is that any government left of where you would like it is per se illegitimate. That's not a principle, that's just will a will to power.
And McConnell already did. He said that the principle is a democratic (small d) one. If he decides that it is not next time around, there is no principle just a will to power based on the belief that Democratic (capital D) is and always will be illegitimate.
The principle ALWAYS was you keep the seat open if you can get to the election and avoid allowing the President of the other party/faction to fill it, and you fill it if your party/faction holds the White House. It dates back at least as far as Fortas (who was filibustered by Senate conservatives who thought Nixon would nominate someone more conservative).
Biden and McConnell both gave voice to the principle but pretended that it was about some idea of "letting the voters decide". But did anyone really believe that it wasn't really about keeping the seat open until the election in the hope of a more favorable nominee?
At any rate, I really hate the morbid talk about Justice Ginsburg. It's creepy when it comes from the right, hoping to fill her seat, and it's also creepy when it comes from the left, usually from people who think they know a lot more about judging than they do and who are looking to proclaim themselves "right" to have said that she should have retired in 2015 or 2009.
"I know McConnell doesn’t have enough shame, but wouldn’t you at least be a little bit embarrassed if you used that rhetoric to defend the decision and then decided it didn’t matter?"
1. Hopefully Ginsburg will live a long time.
2. If the seat is vacant, maybe we will have the opportunity for a real bipartisan moment. Maybe McConnell will say, "You know, the other side made some really good arguments about the vacancy in the last election year, and in retrospect I think I'm persuaded". And then he can hold hearings, and the nominee, if qualified, can be confirmed will a large bipartisan majority.