Judges are 'appointed for life, not for eternity,' Supreme Court rules
Source: Washington Post
By Robert Barnes February 25 at 9:59 AM
Federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity, the Supreme Court concluded Monday, saying the late judge Stephen Reinhardts vote should not have been counted in a decision issued after his death.
In an unsigned opinion, the justices sent back a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that found a practice of the Fresno County Office of Education violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
Reinhardt died March 29, 2018, but the 9th Circuit counted his vote after that. He was listed as the author of an en banc decision one made by a majority of the full court 11 days later.
Without Judge Reinhardts vote, the opinion attributed to him would have been approved by only 5 of the 10 members of the en banc panel who were still living when the decision was filed, the opinion stated. Although the other five living judges concurred in the judgment, they did so for different reasons. The upshot is that Judge Reinhardts vote made a difference.
-snip-
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/judges-are-appointed-for-life-not-eternity-supreme-court-rules/2019/02/25/3278a54e-390b-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html
Opinion of the Court: 18-272 Yovino v. Rizo
Sneederbunk
(14,291 posts)LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,586 posts)Each voter must prove they are alive on election day, or their vote doesn't count.
Polybius
(15,421 posts)This cant just help the GOP. Left-wing, right-wing or moderate, we all gotta go someday.
Sneederbunk
(14,291 posts)LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,586 posts)than whites? Unless you live in a state where having a birth certificate is required to get a driver's license, you need to show you were officially born. Plus, not having a way to get to the polling place on Election Day because of a lack of private transportation has been an ongoing problem for many blacks, who use public transportation.
I just think the GOP will seize on the ruling to keep minorities from voting.
I started this part of the thread sarcastically -- now I'm not so sure.
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)They're still pretty strict about their birthday cut off dates for starting school.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,586 posts)The best "proof of life" information I could find was a 2006 study cited by AG Eric Holden, who stated: "[R]ecent studies indicate that nationally, only 8 percent of white voting-age citizens but 25 percent of African-American voting-age citizens lack government-issued photo IDs." Politifact
I wasn't being serious when I said the SCOTUS decision that, "You have to be alive to vote," would have any effect on elections, but the more I think about it, the more I believe the voter suppression people would jump on this as another obstacle to keep minorities and others who might favor Democratic candidates from voting.
Isn't that the whole purpose of voter suppression?
onenote
(42,704 posts)You can't change your vote after it has been cast.
But a judge can change his or her mind up to the point where the decision is released.
onit2day
(1,201 posts)former9thward
(32,013 posts)The theory is that the judge could have changed his mind before the decision was actually released.
Polybius
(15,421 posts)5-4? 6-3? Unanimous?
Angleae
(4,482 posts)Polybius
(15,421 posts)How did they vote?
onenote
(42,704 posts)Meaning it was unanimous.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)And the opinion was re-written by another Justice and his vote nullified.