SCOTUS book worth a read?

November 24, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From IL reporter Michael Hoskins:  

As you might expect, we like to read and write here at Indiana Lawyer. Perusing lawsuits, caselaw, court opinions, and legal news in general is all part of the job reporting on the Hoosier legal community, and that leads to checking out legal books and blogs that we might not be writing a story about.

Among the books piled up with bookmarks already inserted mid-point are John Grishman’s “The Summons,” Barack Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope,” John Grogan’s “Marley & Me,” and a couple readings related to my weekly church class. A recent find that’s jumped into that reading pile is The Washington Post’s “Supreme Court in Review 2009,” highlighting 15 of the court’s major cases and decisions from this past year’s term. Those in tune with that docket might recall three Hoosier cases hitting the high court – Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, No. 07-21, that involved Indiana’s voter ID law; U.S. v. Efrain Santos, No. 06-1005, that involved the federal money laundering statute; and Ahmad Edwards v. State of Indiana, No. 07-208, that involved a mentally ill person’s Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at trial.

Only a third of the trio got an in-depth look (Crawford), while the other two – Edwards and Santos – made it into a timeline of the decisions near the book’s end. While those three are the only cases with direct Indiana ties, all the decisions impact our state and federal courts’ decision making and our practicing legal community.

Page 243 is where the Crawford coverage begins; it goes on for 29 pages with majority opinion excerpts, dissent highlights, Washington Post coverage, and some unattributed legal commentary. All involves the 65-page decision from April 28 that didn’t have a clear majority but upheld the state’s voter ID law. The three-page commentary portion includes a rehash of the case, procedural history, and specific passages from the writing justices. Comments are scattered throughout like a note about authoring Justice John Paul Stevens who “worked hard to avoid a 5-4 split to diminish partisanship surrounding the Court’s opinions on electoral issues”; and how one portion of the dissent is “especially scornful” about Indiana’s argument that its own mismanagement of voter ID rolls could lead to rules creating more voter burdens. A concluding comment is how the most curious aspect involves the majority upholding the law and any possible burdens despite its concession that in-person fraud has never been an issue here, and that perhaps the court would have considered differently a more tailored request for relief.

Those promoting this book point out that the Post’s “compelling coverage” puts the decisions into present day context, and also “clarifies and explains how the decisions will affect and impact each of us.” The only issue that bothered me was with the “commentary” portions, which the book introduction describes as “commentary by legal experts” but nowhere lists who those experts might be.

At least the paper’s stories have bylines and we know who the writing justices are. Of course, we could get that from reading the paper and court’s work as it comes out, without having to add another new release to the reading list.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT