A Stinging Rebuke

It's not every day that you see our Supreme Court decide an issue 9-0.  On the other hand, given the merits of the case, any other split would have been quite alarming.  Though the case revolves around a mundane question of just why a woman was fired -- for cause or for health -- the EEOC's position on what they were prepared to recognize as a minister was outrageous.

SCOTUSblog notes that Alito's separate opinion was joined by Kagan, which is another remarkable feature of this decision.


Eric Blair said...

Yeah, they all pretty much weren't having any of the govt's argument.

Grim said...

No indeed.

Off topic, but I had a question for you: have you read Rome: Day One? I saw a review of it the other day and wanted to know if it's worth the time.

Texan99 said...

I listened to reports about this on NPR during a long drive yesterday -- some of the people they interviewed were pretty hot about it.

It's pretty bad when people feel they have a constitutional right to sue their own church. Really unclear on the concept.

Texan99 said...

OK, that's not quite right. I don't have any problem with suing a church that permits its ministers to molest children. But this was an employment dispute that turned on whether a "called" teacher with religious duties had violated church policies. She wanted a court to examine whether the policies were justified.

Joseph W. said...

It's not every day that you see our Supreme Court decide an issue 9-0.

It's more common than you might think. I took a look at the most recent opinions. I see several 8-1's, and this and this unanimous ones, and several unanimous per curiams.

The big controversial cases sometimes come out 5-4, but an awful lot of appellate cases (even more so in lower appellate courts) are unanimous "all the judges concur" kind of things.

Eric Blair said...

@Grim: No, I have not read it. It's a little, no, make that waaaay before what I'm interested in.

This is not to imply in any way that it has no merit. I find however, that the further back you go, the more it is all just conjecture.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

As for Alito and Kagan agreeing. This also happens far more often than popular media would suggest. Dahlia Lithwick may view everything in terms of electoral politics. but the justices themselves don't. The mix-and-match of agreement is considerable, and does not consistently follow "party" lines.

I don't think they always get it right. But I give the justices good marks for not caring what they are "supposed" to think.