« For white-collar sentencing fans... | Main | Defendants' brief in Ninth Circuit Booker en banc »

September 26, 2006

New Justices content with their dip in the pool

As detailed in this Tony Mauro piece, the new SCOTUS Justices apparently are content to continue to rely on the cert pool to help screen cert petitions:

As they enter their second term, the Supreme Court's two newest justices have decided, at least temporarily, to stick with the Court's clerk-pooling arrangement, despite concerns that it gives law clerks too much power.  In brief interviews in recent weeks, both Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito Jr. said they will stay in the "cert pool," as it is called, for the current term.

Roberts said he will participate on a "year-to-year basis," and Alito said the same; both indicated they are still weighing the issues that have been raised. But Alito said that during his first term it was apparent to him that certiorari petitions need to be read closely to determine if they are worth granting -- suggesting some need for pooling the workload.

As discussed in posts linked below, I have long speculated that the operation of the SCOTUS cert pool, and thus the insights and interests of the Justices' clerks, has a profound impact on the Supreme Court's docket.  I am a bit disappointed that neither of the new Justices are yet to explore seriously alternatives to cert petition review, but my disappointment is mitigated by the fact that the Court, since the new Justices' arrival, has shown a great interest in more non-capital sentencing issues.

Related posts about the cert pool and the SCOTUS docket:

September 26, 2006 at 04:15 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Justices content with their dip in the pool:


Doug, you may be a tad more disappointed with the pool if and when the Court realizes that it made a stunningly poor choice of vehicle for the question of Blakely retroactivity. Burton has significant issues of jurisdiction and whether Burton's sentence is legally supported by his prior criminal record alone, i.e., no Blakely error at all. They could have, and IMHO should have, chosen a much cleaner case for this issue.

Posted by: Kent Scheidegger | Sep 26, 2006 11:27:50 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB