<< AEDPA Resistance Reversed Again | Main | News Scan >>


Felon Voting

| 6 Comments
The First Circuit felon voting case, Simmons v. Galvin, was on the conference list for Friday. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit undercut the certiorari petition by taking its own felon voting case en banc, thereby eliminating (at least for now) the "circuit split" that was the best argument for the Supreme Court to take up the issue. See prior post.

In today's orders list, the Court asked for the views of the Solicitor General on the question. That kicks the can down the road for the Court, but it puts SG Kagan in a tight spot. If she is the nominee to succeed Justice Stevens, will she be submitting her opinion on this political hot potato right in the middle of her confirmation hearings? Ouch.

6 Comments

Please allow me to pick your brain once again, Kent.

Skinner was not on the order list and his docket has not been updated to reflect that it has been relisted. If it is relisted, it would be for 3rd time (not counting the first time when they were really given no time to review it all).

So, what's likely to happen? Would cert be granted or denied in a misc order today or tomorrow? Would a docket be updated to reflect it has been relisted today? I just want to know when the Court may announce what they plan to do.

Thanks!

The case will almost certainly be relisted for consideration at a later conference. I would not expect that to happen today. Grant or denial in a miscellaneous order would be highly unusual given the posture of the case.

I guess it's really only a hot potato if you come out for the incarcerated felons as most people of sense think that those who are in prison shouldn't be voting. Of course, I suspect that many in the current Administration in their heart of hearts feel that murderers on the row should get to vote.

RE: Skinner, I wonder if Texas plans on testing the evidence, which would moot the SCOTUS challenge.

Those on the left side of the political aisle have a very simple, practical reason for wanting as many criminals to vote as possible. They are well aware that crime has been their Achilles' heel for a long time.

The criminal vote will be nearly unanimous for the soft-on-crime candidates, and that is all the reason they need.

As to Skinner: Considering the posture of the case, wouldn't the Court have informed the public pf their intentions by now? The docket has not been updated to reflect that it has been relisted for conference.

I just noticed that this month the next conference day on the Court's calender is 5/13. I guess it never pays to second guess the Court.

"RE: Skinner, I wonder if Texas plans on testing the evidence, ...."

I hope not. As I believe I've posted before, the DNA testing and the blood spatter analysis of his clothes prove that it was he, not an intruder, that bludgeoned Twila to death. Testing other items will not change that.

Also, there was a video taped confession that was not used by the prosecution. The DA said it was inadmissible but did not state why. In it, Skinner says when Twila returned home they fought, he knocked her on the ground. He also mentioned the son grabbing him from behind and pulling him off his mother. He said that he thought things had calmed down but Twila went into the back room, grabbed the ax handle and hit him with it. Maybe not a full confession but certainly a serious and plausible admission.

The AG did admit the tape into evidence at the H.C. hearings as proof of his ability to function well even though he had a high levels of codeine and alcohol still in his system.

So, there really is no doubt as to the guy being guilty. I just get tired of the defense trying their cases by lying to the public. With the internet and an endless supply of groupies, it has gotten out of hand.

Leave a comment