Will Bode

I mean introducing large piles of prejudicial and irrelevant evidence sounds bad. That doesn't sound like a thing we should do. When you say it that way, yeah. And the court does not hold whether this is in fact a large pile of prejudicial and irrelevant evidence, right?

I mean introducing large piles of prejudicial and irrelevant evidence sounds bad. That doesn't sound like a thing we should do. When you say it that way, yeah. And the court does not hold whether this is in fact a large pile of prejudicial and irrelevant evidence, right?

It's still open to the court to say, oh, OK, now that we understand this is a due process question, Ed Pell requires us to ask whether it's not a due process. They're still allowed to say, well, it's only a medium pile or – right? Yeah.

It's still open to the court to say, oh, OK, now that we understand this is a due process question, Ed Pell requires us to ask whether it's not a due process. They're still allowed to say, well, it's only a medium pile or – right? Yeah.

The scope of the Supreme Court opinions is just a question of law. And the question is whether they then violate, you know, unreasonably apply That clearly established law.

The scope of the Supreme Court opinions is just a question of law. And the question is whether they then violate, you know, unreasonably apply That clearly established law.

But on a question which apparently is now de novo, which is what is holding and what is dicta?

But on a question which apparently is now de novo, which is what is holding and what is dicta?

Well, would you? I think part of the idea is the per curiam is often something that needs to be done. It needs to get out the door. And you don't want people having too much pride of authorship because it just needs to get out the door. And so you're expected to be a little bit more impersonal, not, you know, not fret so much with the stuff you'd fret about if you had the pen.

Well, would you? I think part of the idea is the per curiam is often something that needs to be done. It needs to get out the door. And you don't want people having too much pride of authorship because it just needs to get out the door. And so you're expected to be a little bit more impersonal, not, you know, not fret so much with the stuff you'd fret about if you had the pen.

I mean I think I said this in the last episode. They give Justice Curiam kind of all the dog assignments that just have to be done as a matter of duty. Yeah.

I mean I think I said this in the last episode. They give Justice Curiam kind of all the dog assignments that just have to be done as a matter of duty. Yeah.

Yeah. So I think for a case like this, it could also be that person starts out writing, say, a dissent from denial of cert. So I was looking at the docket. This case has been relisted for almost a year. It was first distributed for conference in March 2024. And then was rescheduled from conference to conference until July 2024. And in July 2024, then the court finally asked for the record.

Yeah. So I think for a case like this, it could also be that person starts out writing, say, a dissent from denial of cert. So I was looking at the docket. This case has been relisted for almost a year. It was first distributed for conference in March 2024. And then was rescheduled from conference to conference until July 2024. And in July 2024, then the court finally asked for the record.

Which is usually what happens when someone is writing a summary reversal. Right. So it suggests to me – or it suggests to me somebody was already writing something saying, OK, we should get into this. They didn't yet have enough votes to get into it. And then maybe at that point – maybe at that point they had enough votes for some reversal.

Which is usually what happens when someone is writing a summary reversal. Right. So it suggests to me – or it suggests to me somebody was already writing something saying, OK, we should get into this. They didn't yet have enough votes to get into it. And then maybe at that point – maybe at that point they had enough votes for some reversal.

Maybe just at that point they had enough justices who were now like open to it. Then they started trying to really dig into the record. Then since July 2024, then – It's taken until now for them to put this whole thing together.

Maybe just at that point they had enough justices who were now like open to it. Then they started trying to really dig into the record. Then since July 2024, then – It's taken until now for them to put this whole thing together.

Yeah. I don't – I thought it was the case that a relist was kind of the ad hoc decision. Like they go into conference and they come out of conference saying, OK, we're still holding this one over. Whereas the reschedule is what they knew ahead of time. They were like, OK, we're working on this. But I'm not positive that lines up with what's going on here. So I don't know.

Yeah. I don't – I thought it was the case that a relist was kind of the ad hoc decision. Like they go into conference and they come out of conference saying, OK, we're still holding this one over. Whereas the reschedule is what they knew ahead of time. They were like, OK, we're working on this. But I'm not positive that lines up with what's going on here. So I don't know.