First Monday in October?

[question everything]

(I asked on GD, but no responses)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6493977

I thought that this was the traditional opening day of the Supreme Court but, apparently, they are going to have hearing, tomorrow, about the "Hilary" movie.

[elleng]

1. Yes, and Yes,

First Monday is the traditional day, but they wanted to address the important campaign-related issue sooner rather than later.

SO, SS gets to participate the day after her 'formal' investiture.

'The court's first Latina and third woman will participate in her first hearing Wednesday, when justices hear arguments about the constitutionality of federal and state laws that restrict the role of corporations in election campaigns.

After she spent much of her confirmation hearings pledging respect for the court's precedents, her first decision will be whether two of the court's decisions on the subject should be overruled.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/08/AR2009090802411.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[question everything]

4. Thank you. Does this mean that this is a special session

tomorrow, and then they return in October, or that the "school year" started early this year?

[elleng]

5. Special 'session.'

[lapfog_1]

2. I had a theory about this...

but it's all speculation.

Suppose that Roberts, as the Chief Justice, decided to move the beginning of this case (possibly one most important in the history of the Court) just as soon as he heard that there was going to be an opening...

He is told that the Repukes will try to delay the nomination of the replacement for as long as possible, long enough for this hearing tomorrow to happen before confirmation of Sotomayor. If that were to happen, even if she had been confirmed in September, they could always ask her to recuse herself because she wasn't seated to hear the entire case.

Only problem was, the Dems got the confirmation done ahead of the hearing... and the Senate Repukes were unable to slow down the confirmation process long enough to get this case started. And while Roberts moved it waaay forward, he probably didn't feel comfortable just making a naked power play and scheduling it to start in July or something.

[question everything]

3. Except, I thought that originally Souter was going to stay on until

a replacement was seated. Only when it was clear that she was going to be nominated, easily, after the RWers had their show, he officially resigned earlier.

[lapfog_1]

8. Yes and no.

He stayed on until his replacement (Sotomayor) was named, but I think he resigned in June, leaving the court with only 8 members at the time until Sotomayor was sworn in.

I could be wrong about that, but I'm sure I remember a news blurb about his resignation and date of departure.

[elleng]

6. The case 'began' some time ago,

so she's got catching up to do, but nothing untoward.

[lapfog_1]

7. But tomorrow is the first hearing by the SCOTUS, no?

At least for this incarnation. That was my understanding.

[elleng]

9. There's an issue they noted that needs further examination.

'At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees.

That position seemed to astound several of the more conservative justices, and there were gasps in the courtroom.

“That’s pretty incredible,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The discussion of book banning may have helped prompt the request for re-argument. In addition, some of the broader issues implicated by the case were only glancingly discussed in the first round of briefs, and some justices may have felt reluctant to take a major step without fuller consideration.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30scotus.html?scp=...