Today in Supreme Court History: June 14, 1810

6/14/1810: Justice Ward Hunt's birthday.

Justice Ward Hunt

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (decided June 14, 1943): explicitly overrules Minersville v. Gobitis, 1940, and holds that refusal to salute flag and recite pledge as part of regular school day was protected by First and Fourteenth Amendments (Court holds that this was impermissible “compelled speech”; plaintiffs were Jehovah’s Witnesses; school had softened earlier versions of the pledge which other parents had said sounded “too much like Hitler’s”)

Taylor v. Mississippi, 319 U.S. 583 (decided June 14, 1943): companion case to Barnette, holding that speech urging that the flag not be saluted is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (decided June 14, 2004): atheist father did not have standing to challenge school requiring daughter to say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance as violating First Amendment (mother, who had legal custody, intervened to oppose and even a lot of liberals criticized the father for putting his daughter into the center of a publicized Constitutional as well as family dispute)

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (decided June 14, 1977): Here the Court criticizes the Illinois Supreme Court’s use of its “shadow docket” to in effect dispose of the merits. Suit was to enjoin American Nazis from marching in a community filled with Holocaust survivors. The state court lifted a lower court’s stay, i.e., the march would happen before a direct appeal could be heard. The Supreme Court holds that the removal of the stay acted as an appealable final judgment, treats the motion to reinstate the stay as a direct appeal, grants the motion, and sends the case back to state court to decide whether the Nazis’ First Amendment rights had been curtailed without procedural safeguards. (The state court then held that they had been, and allowed the march to go forward, 373 N.E.2d 21, which it did on June 25, 1978, and it was a dud, outnumbered by protesters.) (This incident resulted in a very nuanced TV movie, with a cast of old Jewish actors familiar to my parents’ generation playing survivors, headed by Danny Kaye in his only dramatic role.)

Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503 (decided June 14, 2021): jury instruction that conviction for possession of firearm while a convicted felon required a showing that the defendant knew he had felony convictions not necessary in this case; with a multiple felony record defendant could be presumed to have known it

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. 1 (decided June 14, 2018): ban on entering a polling place while wearing a political message violated First Amendment (here, a “Don’t Tread on Me” shirt)

Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., 585 U.S. 33 (decided June 14, 2018): federal court doesn’t have to follow foreign government’s construction of its own law as submitted in its official brief, though must give it weight (class action alleging price-fixing under Sherman Act against Chinese sellers of Vitamin C; Chinese government asserted that pricing regime was mandated by Chinese law) (verdict had been for plaintiff; on remand the Second Circuit dismissed anyway on international comity grounds, 8 F.4th 136)

Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (decided June 14, 2004): where plaintiff alleges “constructive discharge” (sexual harassment so intolerable she had to resign) defendant has burden to show that she failed to mitigate harm (e.g., by filing complaints, which it looks like this woman did, though to little effect)

Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 (decided June 14, 1971): no Equal Protection violation when city after being ordered to desegregate public swimming pools instead closed them (I used to live in a Southern town which did that, but it had only one pool and it was whites only; this city had a pool for blacks which got closed along with the whites-only pools) (wrinkle in this case is that city was the lessee on one of the white pools and the owner subsequently reopened it as whites-only); 5 - 4 decision

McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264 (decided June 14, 1915): denied motion to set aside verdict by applying the common law rule that a juror cannot testify as to misconduct in the jury room (here, an impermissible quotient verdict) (that’s not the rule in New York, at least not now, though one can’t formally question a juror post-verdict without a good reason)

West v. Gibson, 527 U.S. 212 (decided June 14, 1999): 1991 amendment to Title VII is read to allow the EEOC to award “appropriate” (language from original 1972 Act) compensatory damages instead of just back pay (“Words in statutes can enlarge or contract their scope as other changes, in law or in the world, require their application to new instances or make old applications anachronistic [citations]”)

[SRG2]

The Skokie case, of course, inspired this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTT1qUswYL0

[Dan Schiavetta]

I'm getting deja vu here.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"I've always loved you."

[SRG2]

Yup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-iTAauXqZk

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As for dismissing the Newdow case on standing grounds – would it be too cynical to suggest that, in a Presidential election year, the Court didn’t want to declare (or allow the 9th Circuit to declare) that the Pledge of Allegiance, beloved of so many voters, had to be stripped of its reference to God? In short, did politics profane the Court’s sacred precincts?

No, such a suggestion would be disrespectful to the Court.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

When discussing the addition of “Under God” by Congress in 1954, commenters note that part of the idea was as a rejoinder to Godless Communism, though there’s usually scare quotes around “Godless,” as if Communists had been misunderstood all these years and they’d been unfairly branded as atheists.

The Communists did not believe that religious superstition should be invoked in discussion among scientific-minded, rational adults.

[SRG2]

FWIW Lenin wrote that priests should be allowed to join the Party provided they didn't attempt to proselytise.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And indeed, plenty of priests and ministers have been useful idiots for Communism.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There was nothing specifically non-Christian about Lenin-style Communism. In fact if you look at the Gospels Jesus comes off more like a socialist than a capitalist. But for centuries the Church (both Catholic and Orthodox) had been on the side of capitalists and Lenin (just like Marx before him) was justified in opposing it, if only as an institution.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“46. If a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.

“47. Many excellent results will follow from this; and, first of all, property will certainly become more equitably divided. For, the result of civil change and revolution has been to divide cities into two classes separated by a wide chasm. On the one side there is the party which holds power because it holds wealth; which has in its grasp the whole of labor and trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is not without influence even in the administration of the commonwealth. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sick and sore in spirit and ever ready for disturbance. If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer to one another.”

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

The 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, then, contrasts a true view of property with the status quo (at the time, of course, not today!) where there were some people hogging the wealth and a lot of poor without their fair share.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If criticizing the arrogance and oppression of the rich makes you a socialist, then recall the rich nomenklatura in socialist countries, hogging the resources as well as the power. So a critic of oppression by the rich would need to criticize existing forms of socialism as well.

"Under capitalism man exploits man, while under socialism it is precisely the opposite."

[Dan Schiavetta]

One might ask oneself Why did Leo XIII issue that encyclical? It was because there was a real fear among the capitalist class that workers might organize, get violent, and try to take over. This was so even though at the time (1891) socialists were not in power anywhere, let alone Communists. The Church, being an absolute monarchy itself, had always sided with the few against the many. Innocent III excommunicated the barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. 600 years later, Gregory XVI condemned democracy in Mirari Vos (1832). Leo XIII was, I think, truly concerned with the plight of exploited workers, but he was also trying to forestall revolution and disorder while trying to nudge the Church into accepting the changing times.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The original Magna Carta basically had a clause (omitted in later versions) that the barons could start a civil war whenever *they* decided the king was breaking the terms. When Americans advanced such an interpretation of the Constitution, we saw what happened.

"61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear."

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10000/10000-h/10000-h.htm

[Dan Schiavetta]

As the immortal Kliban put it in a cartoon, where a king is addressing the masses from his castle, "I'm your King and you have to do what I say or else I can't be King anymore!"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Reserving the unilateral right to rebel in response to self-ascertained violations of the Constitution - that's a part of the original Magna Carta which has *not* survived in the American tradition. Nor the English.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for getting me to look this stuff up. I don't think that was the sticking point with Innocent. John was his "vassal" and John's rights could not be abridged -- in any way -- without the Pope's o.k. (not that he was about to give it). Innocent might have also objected to John being forced to sign under duress, but this is odd coming from someone who ordered the first large-scale Inquisition (of the Cathars) and recognized the validity of confessions made under torture.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, the Calhounite stuff in Sec. 61 needed to be eliminated. And subsequent Popes, for whatever reasons, did not annul subsequent versions of Magna Carta, the versions without the right of barons to inflict civil war on the people.

[Drewski]

Amusingly, both Canada and England have in recent years been forced to reject legal arguments based on Article 61. It almost became a sovereign-citizenesque trend. See https://www.loweringthebar.net/2021/08/i-claim-this-castle-under-article-61.html

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Thank you - an interesting link, and not just because it confirms one of my claims:

"As I mentioned before, [Art. 61 is] not even in later versions of the Magna Carta, not even the 1216 revision just one year later. And in any event, while a few Magna Carta clauses technically are still in force, those are from the 1225 charter, not the original. In short, to recycle and just slightly update the joke I used last time, the Article 61 argument, “based on an [806]-year-old document, has been wrong for at least [805] years.”"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, the socialists have pure motives, and anything short of socialism is a mere reformist trick to confuse and divide the Working Classes (/sarc):

“The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. ”

and

“If by a strike of workers or concerted interruption of work there should be imminent danger of disturbance to the public peace; or if circumstances were such as that among the working class the ties of family life were relaxed; if religion were found to suffer through the workers not having time and opportunity afforded them to practice its duties; if in workshops and factories there were danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil; or if employers laid burdens upon their workmen which were unjust, or degraded them with conditions repugnant to their dignity as human beings; finally, if health were endangered by excessive labor, or by work unsuited to sex or age – in such cases, there can be no question but that, within certain limits, it would be right to invoke the aid and authority of the law. The limits must be determined by the nature of the occasion which calls for the law’s interference – the principle being that the law must not undertake more, nor proceed further, than is required for the remedy of the evil or the removal of the mischief.”

[Krayt]

FWIW Lenin wrote that priests should be allowed to join the Party provided they didn’t attempt to proselytise.

Giant memeplexes fighting for dominance. They only differ slightly, one uses "for God", the other "for The People", and "I'll make your life better after you die" vs. "I'll make your life better after my 5 year plan."

Who shall acquire the brass ring of power, so they can skip persuasion and move straight to forcing themselves on unwilling units?

[SRG2]

To quote Lenin again, "who, whom?"

[Dilan Esper]

I guess the Court decides flag cases on June 14.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good catch!

[John F. Carr]

Quoting the law from the Taylor case:

That any person who individually, or as a member of any organization, association, or otherwise, shall intentionally preach, teach, or disseminate any teachings, creed, theory, or set of alleged principles, orally, or by means of a phonograph or other contrivance of any kind or nature, or by any other means or method, or by the distribution of any sort of literature, or written or printed matter, designed and calculated to encourage violence, sabotage, or disloyalty to the government of the United States, or the state of Mississippi, or who by action or speech, advocates the cause of the enemies of the United States or who gives information as to the military operations, or plans of defense or military secrets of the nation or this state, by speech, letter, map or picture which would incite any sort of racial distrust, disorder, prejudices or hatreds, or which reasonably tends to create an attitude of stubborn refusal to salute, honor or respect the flag or government of the United States, or of the state of Mississippi, shall be guilty of a felony and punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary until treaty of peace be declared by the United States but such imprisonment shall not exceed ten years.

(emphasis added)
I am not sure when a qualifying "treaty of peace" was declared. Could be 1945, 1990, or in between.

[John F. Carr]

The rule against testimony about misconduct in the jury room has been abolished for accusations of racism.

[David Nieporent]

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (decided June 14, 1943): explicitly overrules Minersville v. Gobitis, 1940, and holds that refusal to salute flag and recite pledge as part of regular school day was protected by First and Fourteenth Amendments (Court holds that this was impermissible “compelled speech”; plaintiffs were Jehovah’s Witnesses; school had softened earlier versions of the pledge which other parents had said sounded “too much like Hitler’s”)

I've always wondered — though not enough to put forth any effort to find out — about the explanation for this reversal in just three years' time. It's not like we were in a war and the war ended so nationalist fervor had subsided; indeed, the opposite. Yes, there was turnover on the court, but 3 justices flipped in that short time period. Was Jackson just that persuasive?

[Dan Schiavetta]

The three (particularly Douglas) were embarrassed by the public blowback against Minersville. (Mind you, this was during wartime. The public is now less tolerant of such freedoms, even though we are at peace.) The story is told well in Simon's biography of Douglas, "Independent Journey".

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you have more on that? I’m surprised that the decision would have been unpopular, given my impressions of conventional attitudes in the 40s, especially since anyone who didn’t like it could have just changed things for their own school district. So I’d love to be educated about it!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Unfortunately all Simon had to go on were written sources, chiefly editorials and letters in the press. I don’t think surveys were done.

One can speculate. Maybe it’s because children were involved. Maybe it’s because (as noted) we were by then actively at war with totalitarian regimes.

[Syd Henderson]

People were using the Gobitis decision as an excuse to persecute children and the results were stark enough to change some votes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I read Independent Journey 40 years ago. I believe a professor recommended it. I vaguely remember that it was interesting and that Douglas seemed interesting. I swapped it for a Dr. Hunter S. Thompson book with a guy from another band, so I can't revisit it, although I am still friendly with that guy (still catch his show periodically) so I could ask him about it, but I would expect the book to be long gone.

I may check on whether Dr. Thompson's artifacts are still being displayed at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame tomorrow.

[Frank Drackman]

Well Revolting, not like we're going to be taking long, intimate showers together, but hmm, wait a minute...........
You didn't say if you liked (Dr) Thompson's book or not....
He was a bit of a "Rube" being from a Slave State, and serving as a lowly USAF enlisted, in fact, when the Internet was young, he used to have a column on the ESPN Site titled "Hey Rube"
I'm guessing you're a HST fan, aren't as many nows a days, Liberals who were also Gun Nuts, in fact, that's how HST left this Moral Coil, a reasonable decision considering his physical ailments.

Frank "When the going gets weird, I can't remember the rest because I was on LSD"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I spoke with Dr. Thompson by telephone. He was at the Hotel Jerome. I was at a different bar.

I assigned some of Dr. Thompson's writing (not a book) as a teaching assistant during undergraduate school. Some of John McPhee's, too . . . although his best work, such as The Gravel Page and Annals of the Former World, arrived long after I left college and even journalism and had begun to practice law.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Black, Douglas, and Murphy were ideologically friendly with the result in Barnette.

The real question is why they went along with Frankfurter the first time. One or more later said that if they had more to think about it, they would have supported the original dissent.

Chief Justice Hughes going along with Gobitis might have been a factor. He no longer was on the Court when Barnette was handed down. Now Chief Justice Stone was the lone dissenter in Gobitis.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503 (decided June 14, 2021): jury instruction that conviction for possession of firearm while a convicted felon required a showing that the defendant knew he had felony convictions not necessary in this case; with a multiple felony record defendant could be presumed to have known it

This is a bit off. At the time of trial, it was understood that there was no need to prove that the defendant knew he was a felon. After the trial, the Supreme Court issued a decision in another case holding that knowledge is required. The question was whether the failure to get a finding was (or could be) harmless error, and the answer was that because of all his prior felonies there was no way anyone could have had a reasonable doubt that he knew he was a felon. But there’s no presuming going on, and no question that going forward juries do need to be instructed that knowledge is an element of the crime.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

[SRG2]

PSP went 8-1 for Suders. Thomas dissented on the grounds that even though she was harassed, the employer didn’t know about it.

[Syd Henderson]

Why are we getting an obscure justice's birthday on the anniversary of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Maybe there's been flagging interest in that decision?

Ha ha, happy Flag Day.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course, Happy Birthday Mr. Trump.

[Longtobefree]

Just for the record, the ultra left wing Wikipedia reports the Russia hoax as truth:
"Trump won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican Party nominee against Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.[a] A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump."

[Dan Schiavetta]

It is obviously true and we didn't need a special counsel investigation to show it. Both by his words and actions Trump was pro-Putin and our intelligence agencies unanimously found Russian interference. Also his campaign tried to collude (and thought they were colluding), though being stupid, they ended up being played by a lobbyist.

[Krayt]

You have to be careful with the rhetoric of "interference". They mean astroturfing online. That people misunderstand it to mean hacking voting machines, uncorrected, serves a different purpose.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes. There’s no evidence of hacking into voting machines. It could have been better phrased.

[Magister]

Limiting interference to only mean hacking voting machines would be a way of pretending there was no interference. But voter suppression, voter intimidation, illegal campaign contributions and so on are frequent Republican methods of interfering with elections (to give a result that may not reflect the will of the electorate).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Why are we getting an obscure justice’s birthday on the anniversary of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette?"

If you wanted scholarly work, you'd be elsewhere.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Lenin ... was justified" ?

"During the Russian Civil War, the Red Army massacred large numbers of clergy and believers often on grounds of alleged support for the Whites" Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War Wikipedia

Someone ought to read that.

Lenin overthrew the first elected Russian govt., founded the Cheka and started the Red Terror, ordered the massacre of the Imperial Family, etc., etc.

Was the Hanging order justified as well?

"Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because 'the last decisive battle' with the kulaks is now underway everywhere. An example must be made.

Hang (absolutely hang, in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, fatcats, bloodsuckers.
Publish their names.
Seize all grain from them.
Designate hostages - in accordance with yesterday's telegram.

Do it in such a fashion, that for hundreds of verst around the people see, tremble, know, shout: "the bloodsucking kulaks are being strangled and will be strangled".

Telegraph receipt and implementation. Yours, Lenin.

P.S. Find tougher people."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

P. P. S. - Thank you for your thoughtfulness in sending me the wig, but I don't think I'll use it, it makes me look too much like Trotsky.

[Nige]

I mean, it sounds like the sort of tough-guy might-is-right show-em-who's-boss brutality you approve of, to be honest.

[Mr. Bumble]

Today in Supreme Court history the Court overturned the ATF bump stock ban; 6-3.

[apedad]

Also . . .

Supreme Court Says DOJ Won’t Have to Refund Bankruptcy Fees

The Department of Justice can keep about $326 million in fees it collected from Chapter 11 debtors during a period when Congress accidentally created a fee discrepancy, the Supreme Court said.

The decision resolves a question the court left open in 2022 when it ruled that a difference in the amount of fees charged to Chapter 11 debtors was unconstitutional. Congress inadvertently created the discrepancy when it increased the maximum amount of fees the Justice Department’s bankruptcy watchdog, the US Trustee, could collect starting in 2018.

And:

Justices Side With US Over Notice for Immigrant Court Hearings

The US Supreme Court said the government doesn’t have to give immigrants who lack legal status all the information about their removal proceedings in its initial hearing notice to lawfully deport them for failing to appear in court.

In a 5-4 decision on Friday, the court said the petitioners in the case before them had received a proper notice under the Immigration and Nationality Act for hearings they missed.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the government “eventually provided each alien with a notice specifying the time and place of the removal hearing.”

[Krayt]

I'm sure Congress will get right on that, returning improperly collected money from The People.

[Balisane]

The only bumping liberals support is when gay men are bumping into other men's rears.

[Krayt]

"Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another."

[Balisane]

Their "pleasures" result in disease that the rest of us have to pay for.

[Bob from Ohio]

"6-3."

Six GOP vote to overturn a GOP policy. 3 Dems support Donald Trump!

[Frank Drackman]

Let me guess, Thomas, Alito, Big Brain Brett in the minority??
So strange, it was "45" who instituted the (now) Unconstitutional Ban, but it's "45"'s supporters who are happy now? Why didn't Barry Hussein ban them? before or Sleepy Joe now? Who cares what the Court said?
I don't need a bump stock, I have real (legal) machine guns, lots of people do. The $200 transfer tax isn't as onerous as it was when it was started in 1934

Frank

[apedad]

O/T

Big Law Firms Eye Boston to Tap Hot Tech, Health Care Markets

Large national law firms settling in Boston could edge out local players, several of which have operated as single office firms or regional setups for decades.

“A lot of these firms are chasing industries that are hot,” said Jennifer Moss, a managing director in search firm Major, Lindsey & Africa’s Boston partner practice group. In Boston, that includes life sciences, health care, investment management and energy, including clean tech and tech, she said.

Regional firms risk losing lawyers to new entrants as larger players flock to Boston.

Boston-founded Burns & Levinson (established 1960), which lost 17 people to ArentFox Schiff this week, is contemplating a future merger with another firm or fortifying itself with hires. “We are exploring several growth options,” the firm said Tuesday.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/big-law-firms-eye-boston-to-tap-hot-tech-health-care-markets

Any lawyers out there affected by this?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“Ward Hunt” is a cool name.

Other than that, what do we remember about the guy? He was a well-respected state judge:

https://history.nycourts.gov/biography/ward-hunt/

As a federal circuit judge, he presided over the Susan Anthony trial, when she illegally voted in the 1872 election.

He had a stroke after being on the Court for less than a decade, making him unable to serve, but didn’t step down because he did not meet the then current pension rules.

Congress passed one special for him and he retired.

[SRG2]

Current scorecard:

Of 38 cases so far this term, 25 were unanimous.

Frequency of being in the majority:

Roberts: 37
Kavanaugh: 37
Barrett: 36
Thomas: 33
Alito: 32* (did not vote in one 8-0 case)
Gorsuch: 32
Sotomayor: 32
Kagan: 32
Jackson: 31

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Michael Newdow himself argued his case.

Newdow has been something of a gadfly type but still impressive that he both trained in the law and medicine. FWIW, I think he did a good job. It helped that Scalia recused himself because he had publicly stated an opinion about the issue.

A few justices likely saw standing as a way to avoid an inconvenient issue. Nonetheless, Justice Stevens did in the past voice his opinion that the Supreme Court should avoid the family law issues involved in the case.

On the merits, if standing was appropriate, the lower court had a good argument. The term "under God" was specifically added to the Pledge in the 1950s to challenge the "godless communism" of the Soviet Union. It is an establishment, minor it might be.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Palmer v. Thompson was argued as a 13th and 14th Amendment case. The primary dissent rested on the 14th.

Douglas’ characteristically more scattershot one covered more ground, including talking about the Ninth Amendment.

This was one of those cases where Blackmun joined the majority in a situation where he might not have later in his tenure.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I do think the standing analysis is right, but I also have to imagine that there were some justices who weren’t too upset that it came out that way either.

I am a bit surprised that no viable plaintiff has come forward in the last 20 years, though.

[David Nieporent]

It is an establishment, minor it might be.

"Ceremonial deism."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

We've had ceremonial deism since the Continental Congress.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

OTOH, the Pledge didn't have "under God" for over 50 years.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, but that’s hardly the only instance of ceremonial deism.

Arguably, Congress was at least making a belated attempt to rescue the Pledge from its (ex?) socialist author, Francis Bellamy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, the term is bandied about.

The general concept is that certain practices are a sort of bland window dressing. Nonetheless, ceremony is still important, which arises when people try to remove favored practices.

The requirement that notaries had to swear an oath to God was once seen as acceptable too. If that is a problem, having school children daily say “under God” is dubious too.

Someone who doesn't believe in God or who thinks it is immoral for the government to use God's name in a daily pledge might not find the "ceremonial deism" bland window dressing.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If I were writing up a patriotic exercise for citizens, it would be based on the constitutional oath/affirmation taken by public officials and in naturalization ceremonies.

The Constitution is "Godless," after all! (Never mind that it speaks of the "Year of our Lord" and allows the President his Sunday rest when considering whether to veto bills.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It’s an idea.

Many people take constitutional oaths. New York notaries are executive officers of the state. It might be more appropriate for constitutional offices and when a person serves a civic duty like jury duty. Not sure about doing it for ten-year-olds.

The original pledge was a good general idea. I am not a big fan of pledging to a flag. But, the basic ideas found in the original pledge generally fit the bill. A daily affirmation of our American values for school children (learning to be full-fledged citizens) is okay.