Sotomayor Draws Retort From a Fellow Justice (Thomas gets snippy) [View All]

[usregimechange]

(NYT) In a minor case, part of an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor was rejected by Justice Clarence Thomas.


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court released its first four decisions in argued cases this term on Tuesday. They were all minor, but one was notable for being Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court debut and for prompting a testy concurrence from Justice Clarence Thomas.

The case concerned whether federal trial-court rulings concerning the lawyer-client privilege may be appealed right away. Justice Sotomayor, with methodical reasoning and a formal writing style, said no.

“Permitting parties to undertake successive, piecemeal appeals of all adverse attorney-client rulings,” she wrote, “would unduly delay the resolution of district court litigation and needlessly burden the courts of appeals.”

Justice Sotomayor said that result was dictated by sound policy and was consistent with a law governing appeals.

The decision was unanimous, but Justice Clarence Thomas declined to join the part of Justice Sotomayor’s opinion discussing why the cost of allowing immediate appeals outweighs the possibility that candid communications between lawyers and their clients might be chilled.

In a concurrence, Justice Thomas took a swipe at his new colleague, saying she had “with a sweep of the court’s pen” substituted “value judgments” and “what the court thinks is a good idea” for the text of a federal law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/us/09sotomayor.html?_r=1


Justice Sotomayor:
"In sum, we conclude that the collateral order doctrine does not extend to disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege. Effective appellate review can be had by other means. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It is so ordered."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-678.ZO.html

Or according to Bloomberg news the court: "dealt a unanimous setback to businesses, limiting their ability to appeal orders that require the disclosure of documents during litigation."

Justice Thomas objects:
"Accordingly, I would leave the value judgments the Court makes in its opinion to the rulemaking process, and in so doing take this opportunity to limit—effectively, predictably, and in a way we should have done long ago—the doctrine that, with a sweep of the Court’s pen, subordinated what the appellate jurisdiction statute says to what the Court thinks is a good idea."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-678.ZC.html