I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Caldwell v. Caldwell denied certiorari

Update: The San Francisco Chronicle now has a news article about this. Comments may be left there.

Kevin Vicklund informed me that the Supreme Court announced this morning that Caldwell v. Caldwell was -- unfortunately -- denied certiorari. This morning's orders of the court are here. The Religion Clause blog has an article about the denial of ceritiorari. What is especially galling is the fact that -- as the Pacific Justice Institute's website pointed out -- the 9th circuit has
been especially lenient in granting standing to sue in other establishment clause cases [1]. Caldwell v. Caldwell received a lot of publicity for a case that was denied certiorari -- indeed, most cases that are granted certiorari remain unknown to most people.

What I suggest now is a demand that UC Berkeley set up another version of the website by removing the offending religious material. If they refuse, they could then be sued for refusal to make a reasonable effort to accommodate people's religious beliefs. If nothing else, this will help to keep this issue in the public eye.
.
The failure of Caldwell v. Caldwell to make the SCOTUSblog's "Petitions to Watch" lists may have been a factor in the denial of certiorari.[1] In a recent year, only 9 petitions that did not make the lists were granted ceritiorari. IMO these lists are prejudicial and should therefore be discontinued -- the court might be using these lists to help screen out cases. Of the ten cases on the "Petitions to Watch" list for the group of petitions that included Caldwell (i.e., last Friday's group), the results were as follows:

Certiorari granted: No cases

Certiorari denied: Seven cases

Requests for Solicitor General's opinion: Two cases

No decision announced: One case

I was especially intrigued by the decision for Docket No. 08-571, Elko County, Nevada, v. The Wilderness Society, et al. --
The motion of Mountain States Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Why would the court dismiss a case and then grant permission to file an amicus brief in the same case?
.

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home