No noted dissents does NOT mean the decision was unanimous. We will never know the vote count.

[BzaDem]

As an example, just last Fall, the Supreme Court stayed any enforcement of the Arizona campaign finance law without noted dissent, in preparation for their invalidation of the law a few months ago. But it is implausible that any of the liberal justices (let alone all of them) agreed with the stay. The resulting opinion in the case several months later made that clear.

Furthermore, every few weeks, there are pages and pages of orders refusing to hear cases, and 99.9% of them do not contain any noted dissent (even though it is implausible that no one dissented).

The vast majority of Supreme Court orders are without any noted dissent. It is undoubtedly true that many of these are unanimous, but there are also ones that are not unanimous, and still others where some justices write opinions agreeing or disagreeing with the order. But in the end, since the court didn't outline what the vote count was, we will never know in this case.

I think it is absurd that we don't know the vote count in every case, but unfortunately we do not.

[Parker CA]

1. Pete Williams has reported all night and just said again two mins ago on Ed that the votes won't

ever be released and we'll never know.

That conflicts greatly with the reporting from other sources and here on DU. Makes me wonder who started the story and what their rational was.

[BzaDem]

3. Pete Williams is correct. Hopefully everyone else will correct their reporting. n/t

[pkdu]

2. Thankyou. Hope this quells the hysteria on here about the "Dem" SC members n/t

Dont get me wrong - this is a travesty on so many levels... but WE DO NOT KNOW how Dem SC members voted on this.

[jberryhill]

4. Expecting anyone here to understand per curiam orders is a bit much /nt