Linda is taking note of the same case on which we offered our opinion, but she thinks Kavanaugh is doing the opposite of what we think Kavanaugh is doing.

We can’t both be right.  Eventually we’ll see who’s who or what’s what, as the case may be.

But there is much, much more going on with the SCOTUS, and we’re interested in this whole “overturn precedent” issue for reasons of our own having nothing to do with Roe v. Wade, although we of course recognize that Roe is what animates the partisans, including Greenhouse.

Specifically, we’ve been following a couple of pending cases, one of which was supposedly “conferenced” yesterday.  The “order list” comes out Monday, and at that point we’ll know if the case is granted, denied or “relisted”.  A grant is of course extremely significant.  A “relist” is potentially extremely significant, but not significant yet.

The other case has a response due next week.

What we would like to see is both of these cases taken up – and maybe another that we might have a hand in – for the SCOTUS to reconsider and overturn Manuel v. City of Joliet and Albright v. Oliver, to the extent the latter is a precedent at all.  You may recall that we don’t much care for either of those cases, because they confuse and conflate the 4th amendment with due process.  Among other Bad Things.

We’ve discussed this issue a lot over the years.  Don’t hesitate to contact us or comment if you want to know more.