You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[–]1HepCat0 points
1 point
1 point
(+1|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Yeah it's not super clear from the article but it seems like the following?:
1) The judge ruled and authored a document/'opinion' to explain the decision
2) The judge died
3) Some court clerk or something filed the opinion, thus making it official
4) The losing party appealed the ruling based on the judge's death prior to the filing.
5) SCOTUS (who has their own dead/dying justice) declared the filing invalid and ordered a retrial with a complete panel of living judges.
Seems like SCOTUS made the right call. I'm surprised this is the first time something like this has come up. I think the main concern is that the dead judge is no longer around to authenticate his ruling. E.g., in case the clerk altered the document (or fabricated the whole thing) before filing it.
Apart from that, the judge had ostensibly locked his ruling in. Apparently, none of his nine colleagues, including those who'd dissented, found the filed document suspicious enough to raise their own stink over it either. If I'm understanding the scenario correctly assassinations would only be effective if you could subsequently convince the public, etc. that the judge was both ready to rule and had indeed already rendered an unfiled verdict. Still not a great loop hole to leave lying around, though.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 1HepCat 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Yeah it's not super clear from the article but it seems like the following?:
1) The judge ruled and authored a document/'opinion' to explain the decision
2) The judge died
3) Some court clerk or something filed the opinion, thus making it official
4) The losing party appealed the ruling based on the judge's death prior to the filing.
5) SCOTUS (who has their own dead/dying justice) declared the filing invalid and ordered a retrial with a complete panel of living judges.
Seems like SCOTUS made the right call. I'm surprised this is the first time something like this has come up. I think the main concern is that the dead judge is no longer around to authenticate his ruling. E.g., in case the clerk altered the document (or fabricated the whole thing) before filing it.
Apart from that, the judge had ostensibly locked his ruling in. Apparently, none of his nine colleagues, including those who'd dissented, found the filed document suspicious enough to raise their own stink over it either. If I'm understanding the scenario correctly assassinations would only be effective if you could subsequently convince the public, etc. that the judge was both ready to rule and had indeed already rendered an unfiled verdict. Still not a great loop hole to leave lying around, though.