Follow POL on Twitter Retired Justice John Paul Stevens complains about "a disappointing departure from the ideal that the court, notwithstanding changes in membership, upholds its prior decisions" in Booth v. Maryland. This is remarkable chutzpah, given the number of 5-4 decisions Stevens joined that reversed prior decisions after changes in court composition, such as Roper v. Simmons and Lawrence v. Texas.
The chutzpah of Justice Stevens
Related Entries:
- Obamacare Debate Complete: The participant with the most compelling argument was...
- Sackett v. EPA
- Coming next week: featured discussion on PPACA
- A small victory against the EPA
- New Podcasts: Making sense of the court order in Kiobel
- Kiobel debate complete
- New Featured Discussion: Kiobel and corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute
- Supreme Court hears argument on Stolen Valor Act
- Compucredit v. Greenwood
- Wherein George Soros wastes his money
- The myth of the pro-business Supreme Court (continued)
- The expense of the death penalty
- Alex Tabarrok on medical patents
- Reuters releases innovative SCOTUS tracking tool
- Supreme Court TV?
 |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
 |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |
