Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Maris can relate*

Just a thought, but if the Supreme Court is waiting on a replacement for O'Connor, do the rulings they make in the meantime get marked with an asterisk? We all know that when athletes announce their retirement, in their heads they've already retired. Supreme Court Justices aren't any different.

For those keeping score at home, here's what the Eight Men Out have done so far:

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Workers at meat-processing plants must be paid for the time they spend walking between their work stations and the locker rooms where they don and doff protective gear, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.[Bloomberg]

Citing jurisdiction over Dr. Phil, the Supreme Court got involved in domestic disputes. Namely, what happens when one spouse refuses consent to search and the other spouse gives consent.
A majority of the justices appeared concerned that the spouse giving the permission would override the wishes of the other spouse and they questioned why the police could not get a warrant instead. [Reuters]
But not Clarence Thomas! Regretfully, Reuters did not expound on "appeared to support the search." Well, whoopee for you, Reuters. I can do that kind of slackjawed reporting too.

In a separate story, it took the Southern Baptists to figure out that if Alito gets confirmed to the Court, then for the FIRST TIME EVER the majority of justices will be Catholic. From the Baptist Standard:
Alito would join Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as Catholics on the high court. . .Two current justices are Jewish—Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg—a fact also surprising to many. Justices David Souter and John Paul Stevens are Protestants.
Here comes the Vatican.

No comments: