Today in Supreme Court History: January 17, 1973 and January 17, 1996

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) and United States v. Virginia (1996) were argued on the same day, twenty-three years apart. Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued the former case, and wrote the majority opinion in the latter case.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California, 493 U.S. 378 (decided January 17, 1990): generally applicable sales and use tax (i.e., goods, property) does not violate Free Exercise clause when imposed on religious organization

Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (decided January 17, 2001): petition for commitment of convicted sexual offender who was about to finish serving his sentence is a civil proceeding (i.e., not punitive) and did not implicate Double Jeopardy or Ex Post Facto prohibitions

Gonzalez v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (decided January 17, 2007): conviction of permanent resident alien for “unlawful driving or taking of vehicle” as defined by California statute was a “theft offense” under Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(G)) and therefore predicate for deportation (not mentioned exactly what this guy did — the statute seems to cover some innocuous situations)

McGrain v. Daughtery, 273 U.S. 135 (decided January 17, 1927): Senate has power to jail subpoenaed witness who fails to appear (it was investigating the Department of Justice and the witness was the brother of the former Attorney General); irrelevant that during habeas process a new Congress was sworn in (the committee work presumably continued because it was a Republican Congress replacing a Republican Congress)

Gonzalez v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (decided January 17, 2006): Attorney General did not have authority to issue “interpretive rule” stating that physicians assisting suicide as permitted by Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act would be violating the federal Controlled Substances Act

[John F. Carr]

The question in Gonzales was whether aiding and abetting a theft offense was to be treated the same as committing a theft offense. The Supreme Court said yes.

The Supreme Court did not review the ruling that borrowing a car is a theft offense the same as stealing one. The lower courts were not divided on that quesiton.

In Massachusetts riding in a car without the owner's permission is the same crime as driving without permission. Proof of criminal intent may be harder to come by, the same way receiving stolen property is harder to prove than stealing.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks

[ReaderY]

I agree with Scalia’s dissent in Gonzalez v. Oregon. Like Justice Thomas, I don’t think simple possession of a drug is within the federal government’s commerce clause power to begin with. For that reason, I do not think the federal government has or should have power to regulate the entire subject. However, given that the Court has consistently held otherwise, Scalia was correct that the Attorney General’s memorandum reflected the statute Congress enacted, even without Auer deference.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

(not mentioned exactly what this guy did — the statute seems to cover some innocuous situations)

The court isn’t allowed to consider what he actually did, but

In 2002, respondent was charged in the Superior Court of California with unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, in violation of California Vehicle Code § 10851(a) (West 2000). The information alleged that respondent willfully and unlawfully drove or took a 1992 Honda Accord without the consent of the owner and with the intent to deprive the owner of title to and possession of the vehicle.

[Mr. Bumble]

Today should be an important day in Supreme Court history as both Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce and Loper Bright v. Raimondo. are scheduled for oral argument.
Will Chevron finally be put to rest?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Politicians, physicians and psychologists don’t want to propose it (because of right-wing blowback) but I think it is widely practiced “sub rosa” or in subtle forms.

[ReaderY]

Perhaps mobster hit folks should be tried for practicing medicine without a license. After all, to a mobster life lacks dignity when one is out of favor with the boss. They formally consent to this when they join. Why should people be subjected to serious punishment based on a state interest no more substantial than a mere philosophical disagreement about what constitutes a dignified life? If their life is determined to lack dignity and they are determined to be better off without it, why should the state interfere with their decisions? Given that all parties agree that without dignity human life is meaningless, has no value, and shouldn’t be profected, why should the state continue to put people in prison for decades over nothing more than having a non-mainstream conception of dignity?

[Bob from Ohio]

"surprised assisted suicide hasn’t become a more widely accepted policy."

Our culture prefers to kill unborn children.

[John F. Carr]

A relative of somebody dying in hospice care told me the attendants had some morphine to use when the soon-to-be-deceased's breathing got too difficult.

Massachusetts voters narrowly defeated an initiative to allow assisted suicide. Generally the state is very liberal. The Catholic Church used to be very influential. https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_2,_Physician-Assisted_Death_Initiative_(2012)

[Mr. Bumble]

Experts like Dr. Fraudci?

[bernard11]

Why do we need experts when lawyers know everything?

[Bob from Ohio]

"defer to experts"

Sure but that case is talking about bureaucrats.

[defaultdotxbe]

Which is exactly why smart people don't want to defer to government agencies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why would smart people defer to experts?

I blame adequate, legitimate education; sound judgment; and useful experience.

[bernard11]

Right wing anti-intellectualism puts in an appearance.

[Magister]

But it would be unfortunate if profit motives drove decisions of that sort.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/doctors-say-hca-hospitals-push-patients-hospice-care-rcna81599

[Magister]

I'm not sure how many cases Ginsburg (or other justices) argued before the Supreme Court before joining it; the Court hears arguments only during a portion of the year, and various issues get revisited repeatedly. So it would not be very surprising to find such a coincidence among all the justices, issues and cases that are heard, and dates of hearing arguments do not seem to be so memorable that anyone would have noticed at the time. But it's not impossible, if Ginsburg remembered the earlier case as significant and were able to influence scheduling on a similar case.

[Magister]

Why do we need lawyers when non-lawyers commenting here know everything?

[Mr. Bumble]

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Conservatives don't believe lawyers know everything.

Conservatives believe fairy tale characters are all-knowing.

That's why Republicans operate and attend nonsense-based schools while disdaining our society's strongest (reality-based) teaching and research institutions.

[Mr. Bumble]

Says the left-wing, pseudo-intellectual.

[Bob from Ohio]

Evidence needed.

[Mr. Bumble]

What is the criteria (if any) for someone to be considered or thought of as an "expert"?

[Mr. Bumble]

.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The repeated federal recommendation that people keep six feet of distance between themselves and others "sort of just appeared," said Fauci—the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and former chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden—to lawmakers yesterday, according to a statement released today from the committee's Chairman, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R–Ohio)."

Expert!

Doctors don't write regs either

[Magister]

Sure, we can just trust that nothing bad will happen.

[Dilan Esper]

The thing is we all know of cases where assisted suicide is absolutely the compassionate thing to do, but where it has been legalized, it tends to spread beyond those core cases and there are all sorts of abuses as well as just ordinary depressed people committing suicide. The Netherlands and Canada have seen numerous examples of this.

It may actually be that our current system-- where nobody really stops doctors from doing it sub rosa, but it isn't legalized and can't be accessed by ordinary depressed people or greedy relatives trying to off grandma- might be the optimal policy.

[bernard11]

We need lawyers because they know the law.

[bernard11]

Um.

Just spitballing here but maybe extensive training, and experience in a particular field?

I know you don't believe in that, and think those people are always wrong, because you have a convenient example or two, but you are mistaken.

You use that as an excuse to disregard any expert opinion you don't want to hear.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-experts-are-almost-always-wrong-9997024/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/misinformation-desk/202106/the-bias-experts

[bernard11]

Your Smithsonian article is about making political predictions. So the experts are often wrong, which is no surprise. Making predictions about high-variance events is a crappy test of expertise.

But if I want to know if a bridge can handle the expected load safely, I'll ask an engineer with training and experience in designing bridges, not some anonymous Internet commenter.

Similarly, the Psychology Today article has a very narrow focus. And there is this:

The now-renowned geneticist Barbara McClintock, for example, was mocked for her 1948 discovery that DNA sequences could change locations on the chromosome (see also Keller, 1983). She described the reaction of her fellow scientists as “puzzlement, even hostility” (McClintock, 1987). Eventually, other scientists supported her conclusion, and she won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1983, the first woman to win it solo.

Note first that the individual who successfully challenged orthodoxy was herself an expert. Then, note that her view ultimately prevailed. Finally, note that this is one example.

Sure, conventional wisdom can sometimes be wrong. But the idea that it always is is just stupid. Even stupider is the idea that a layman with no knowledge of the area will always be right.

[bernard11]

You mean they'd rather defer to judges on technical questions?

Sorry, that's dumb, not smart.