What U.S. Supreme Court Justice wrote this?

[madmusic]

"Perhaps Congress should have taken a lesson from the California Legislature, which (if my worst fears about today’s holding are justified) may have stumbled upon the El Dorado sought by many in vain since the beginning of the Republic: a means of dispensing with inconvenient constitutional “rights.” For now, California has used this gimmick only to eviscerate the Double Jeopardy Clause; it still provides a right to notice, jury trial, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt on “enhancement” allegations as a matter of state law. But if the Court is right today, those protections could be withdrawn tomorrow."

Hint: Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg joined.

[usregimechange]

1. Stevens?

[usregimechange]

2. Scalia! My hair is on fire!

[madmusic]

11. Hurry, stick your head in the

kitchen sink! Burnt bald is so yesterday.

[TahitiNut]

3. Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998)

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-6146.ZD1.html


FWIW, I personally (IANAL) subscribe to Justice Stevens' dissent.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-6146.ZD.html

[madmusic]

9. Same here, and had to look this up

A plea of autrefois acquit (French for 'previously acquitted') means the defendant claims to have been previously acquitted of the same offence, on substantially the same evidence, and that hence he or she cannot be tried again. A plea of autrefois acquit can be combined with a plea of not guilty. This plea is a term of Law French.

Related doctines include res judicata and, in the criminal context, a plea in bar of double jeopardy.

I was very surprised at Scalia's dissent, however and it has a surprising liberty depth to it. A lot of people don't realize how wingnut the CA Supreme Court is.

edit italics

[MannyGoldstein]

4. I Cheated And Looked It Up

But I was actually going to guess Scalia. To his credit Scalia did join with seven other justices in telling The Chimperor that he cannot indefinitely hold a US citizen without access to the courts and due process. (Hey - can you guess who the one dissenting Justice was?)

[madrchsod]

5. could it be---

"silent bob" oh i mean "silent clarence"?

[MannyGoldstein]

7. We Have A Winner! nt

[UrbScotty]

6. Alito? (nt)

[madmusic]

8. Thomas?

Just a guess because I don't remember.

[necso]

10. Of the four,

Justice Scalia is the best jurist -- and the most intelligent.

And there's some hope that in some areas of assault on the Constitution he will rise to the challenge -- indeed, maybe there's more hope than for some of the other five.

But a SC Justice must be impartial, not predisposed (by ideology, beliefs, peers, whatever) -- and must look to preserve the hard-won "rights" of citizens (certainly the founders' intent), regardless of whether or not he approves of the "right" in question.

Being able to make fine arguments in support of a predisposed decision is without merit.

[madmusic]

12. Well said.

I'm torn about Scalia. Maybe he's not a die hard neocon and he might turn on the Right from their point of view. Some of his opinions are great, but some of what he's said about the death penalty is questionable.

I'm not sure what to think, but he may become more of a swing vote than Kennedy.

[necso]

13. When I saw I had a reply,

I was hoping that you weren't going to try to squeeze any more praise out of me.

(Lol.)

Justice Scalia has possibilities, if any of the four do -- and such is his stature that he could potentially influence others (of the four, beyond).