ASSIGNMENT FOR MONDAY
read the levinson stuff


Most important non-justice factor in the courts' decision: solicitor-general
-argues cases in front of the court, represents US
-currently Paul Clement
-smart man, also conservative (reflects that Bush appointed him)
-preceded by Theodore Olsen (conservative)
-won Bush v. Gore
-preceded by Kenneth Starr
-subject to confirmation by the senate
Supreme Court favors solicitor-general in hearing cases
-about 40-50% of solicitor's cases are reviewed by the court (compare to ~1% of cases brought by others)
-however, solicitor only selects a relative few cases to bring to the court
-court also usually asks solicitor general to file an amicus brief

Another important group of players- Law Clerks
-first served 1 or more years in courts of appeals
-chosen by justices themselves
-not only important in choosing which cases get heard by the court, but also end up writing parts of (or whole) opinions

Approx. 9000 cases that come to the court every year
-they come through petitions for writ of certiorari most of the time

Nearly half of court's decisions last term were unanimous (more than usual)
Last year, there were 16 5-4 decisions
-almost always the opinions for this were written by Kennedy or O'Connor (swing votes)
Much more often now there are plurality opinions
-non-binding, less weight with regards to precedent
-no longer 'the opinion of the court'
-still binding for the participants in the case, but not for future cases

BRING BOOK TO CLASS, DUMBASS

Up until recently, the tradition not was to dissent (silent acquiescence)
-more recently, justices have been dissenting more, even dissenting from parts of opinions

Last year, justices who dissented the most were Stevens and Breyer
-whos dissenting oftentimes yields what ideology is winning/losing
-this reflects growing conservative trend
fewest dissents- Roberts and Kennedy
-generally, Kennedy makes the majority, and Roberts is chief justice
-being chief justice means that you assign the opinion in whichever side you're in
-this means that you can in large part determine what the precedent is
-often, if the case is forgone, chief justices will switch to the side of the majority so that they can assign the opinion

Right to privacy is an ordinary right rather than a fundamental right (more burden of proof to sustain it)


Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
4th circuit is basically the most conservative court of appeals in the US (9th is the most liberal)
To bring a court to the court, you must have a 'standing to sue'- or have a personal case
in this case, Hamdi's father sued on behalf of his son
Plurality opinion
Hamdi happened to be an American citizen, changes legal opinion considerably
-makes it less important as precedent
Issue at stake was one of detention-
-Administration termed Hamdi and many like him 'enemy combatants'
-this was to avoid calling him a POW
in this, the court accepted the term "enemy combatant" rather than POW
-theory here is that enemy combatants have fewer rights than POWs
the court said that there were really no exigent circumstances that would warrant the curtailment of rights of Hamdi