Sunday, November 02, 2014
baudewatch:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/01/abortion-law-upheld-by-minority-vote/
Section 4. A majority of the supreme court shall be necessary to constitute a quorum or to
pronounce a decision, provided that the supreme court shall not declare a legislative
enactment unconstitutional unless at least four of the members of the court so decide.
That's a puzzle. Does due process and federalism require that state courts have a mechanism for judicial review? I'm looking at you Wisconsin.
In the recent voter ID case, Wisconsin held that a statute that severely burdens voting rights is constitutional until proven guilty. When the claims are federal, that seems to me to be a reserable error of law. (written a few days ago, see related post below)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/01/abortion-law-upheld-by-minority-vote/
Section 4. A majority of the supreme court shall be necessary to constitute a quorum or to
pronounce a decision, provided that the supreme court shall not declare a legislative
enactment unconstitutional unless at least four of the members of the court so decide.
That's a puzzle. Does due process and federalism require that state courts have a mechanism for judicial review? I'm looking at you Wisconsin.
In the recent voter ID case, Wisconsin held that a statute that severely burdens voting rights is constitutional until proven guilty. When the claims are federal, that seems to me to be a reserable error of law. (written a few days ago, see related post below)
Comments:
Post a Comment
