Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

loquitur · 05-29-2008, 02:02 PM

Will, on the punitive damages hypothetical, there was a series of three cases. BMW v Gore was decided in 1996 and held 5-4 that the Const restricted punitive damages awards. The dissents (esp Scalia and Thomas) said the Const is silent on the issue, and if the corp gets socked, well, that's a question of state law and none of the US Sup Ct's concern. Here is the lineup (lifted from the Sup Ct opinion): "STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR and SOUTER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., joined."

State Farm v Campbell gave as a general guideline for reasonable punitive damages awards a multiple less than ten times compensatory, unless it's really a tiny compensatory award. That was decided 6-3 in 2003. Here is the lineup: "Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., Thomas, J., and Ginsburg, J., filed dissenting opinions." Scalia and Thomas were pretty insistent that the const has nothing to say on this issue.

The most recent one was PHILIP MORRIS USA v. WILLIAMS, decided 5-4 in Feb 2007. The lineup on that was "Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Souter, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., and Thomas, J., filed dissenting opinions. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined."

On the marijuana hypothetical, Gonzalez v Raich was decided 6-3 in 2005, with the dissenters insisting the federal govt lacked power to prohibit you from growing pot in your own home for your own use. The dissenters were Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas (Alito and Roberts weren't on the court yet). Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, Kennedy and (to my surprise) Scalia thought the feds were perfectly within their rights to do that.

Will, the vast majority of the Supreme Court's work involves reading statutes to figure out what they mean and how they apply to the case. In most of those cases, if Congress or the state legislature don't like the result, they can fix it by amending the statute.

The Supreme Court's work is mainly addressed to keeping the state of the law stable and uniform. There are very very few true hot button cases, and if you look at the results, you'll see quite a number of cases where the result was at odds with what you'd expect if the justices were voting their politics. How about Kelo v New London, where the Court held 5-4 that it's perfectly OK for the state to take people's homes away in order to give the land to Pfizer? The dissenters in that case were Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor. I guess they must be corporate tools.

In other words, you have this cartoonish picture of the court in your head that I can tell you from reading its work day to day has NOTHING to do with reality.

As for the duck-hunting-with-Cheney case, you might want to read the opinion Scalia wrote in response to the motion for him to recuse. Suffice it to say there were more issues involved than you think, AND in any event the case was ultimately decided 7-2 in Cheney's favor.

I don't expect laymen who read mainly newspapers for their sources to know the ins and outs of this stuff, but if you do go out on a limb with pronouncements about things like this, it helps to really know what you're talking about.

05-29-2008, 02:02 PM	#81 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Will, on the punitive damages hypothetical, there was a series of three cases. BMW v Gore was decided in 1996 and held 5-4 that the Const restricted punitive damages awards. The dissents (esp Scalia and Thomas) said the Const is silent on the issue, and if the corp gets socked, well, that's a question of state law and none of the US Sup Ct's concern. Here is the lineup (lifted from the Sup Ct opinion): "STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR and SOUTER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., joined." State Farm v Campbell gave as a general guideline for reasonable punitive damages awards a multiple less than ten times compensatory, unless it's really a tiny compensatory award. That was decided 6-3 in 2003. Here is the lineup: "Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., Thomas, J., and Ginsburg, J., filed dissenting opinions." Scalia and Thomas were pretty insistent that the const has nothing to say on this issue. The most recent one was PHILIP MORRIS USA v. WILLIAMS, decided 5-4 in Feb 2007. The lineup on that was "Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Souter, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., and Thomas, J., filed dissenting opinions. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined." On the marijuana hypothetical, Gonzalez v Raich was decided 6-3 in 2005, with the dissenters insisting the federal govt lacked power to prohibit you from growing pot in your own home for your own use. The dissenters were Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas (Alito and Roberts weren't on the court yet). Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, Kennedy and (to my surprise) Scalia thought the feds were perfectly within their rights to do that. Will, the vast majority of the Supreme Court's work involves reading statutes to figure out what they mean and how they apply to the case. In most of those cases, if Congress or the state legislature don't like the result, they can fix it by amending the statute. The Supreme Court's work is mainly addressed to keeping the state of the law stable and uniform. There are very very few true hot button cases, and if you look at the results, you'll see quite a number of cases where the result was at odds with what you'd expect if the justices were voting their politics. How about Kelo v New London, where the Court held 5-4 that it's perfectly OK for the state to take people's homes away in order to give the land to Pfizer? The dissenters in that case were Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor. I guess they must be corporate tools. In other words, you have this cartoonish picture of the court in your head that I can tell you from reading its work day to day has NOTHING to do with reality. As for the duck-hunting-with-Cheney case, you might want to read the opinion Scalia wrote in response to the motion for him to recuse. Suffice it to say there were more issues involved than you think, AND in any event the case was ultimately decided 7-2 in Cheney's favor. I don't expect laymen who read mainly newspapers for their sources to know the ins and outs of this stuff, but if you do go out on a limb with pronouncements about things like this, it helps to really know what you're talking about.