Ginsburg and McDonald...

[legaleagle_45]

Justice Ginsburg was at a Harvard Club presentation in Washington, DC, on Thursday, Dec, 17.

The topic she spoke on was "the value of dissenting opinions." According to an attendee, Ginsburg said the dissent will become the majority in front of a "future, wiser court." She gave as an example the dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller.

So I guess we wont get a 9-0 opinion in McDonald.

 

[Cosmoline]

The high court has become almost totally politicized. The vetting process is so much more intense now it's unlikely we'll be seeing any more "turncoat" justices from either party.

 

[everallm]

This has come up a few times here and elsewhere with no actual attendee report or transcript available anywhere I've found.

From the various spiels I've parsed it APPEARS that she was discussing how cases involving fundamental constitutional rights are addressed in the SC. From this she went through some of the ways dissenting opinions have over time become incorporated in later rulings.

The most recent and high profile example of BoR rulings is Heller so it's hardly surprising she brought it up.

Assuming that's what actually happened it's neither controversial, unusual or worrying just a simple explanation of how the SC works,

In fact you could just as easily read it the other way and say that she is laying the groundwork in how the dissenting opinions in for example Slaughterhouse can be incorporated in the McDonald/2A/14th/P+I case post Heller.

Then again if I could predict SC cases I would be a much wealthier man then I am now.....

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

Hi, legal!

Ginsburg might be right if in the McDonald case the Slaughterhouse cases are revisited and reversed.

Are you/did you work on an amicus brief in the McDonald case?

ECS

 

[armoredman]

We can only hope...