tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post5690116308278530976..comments2023-10-28T08:02:44.565-05:00Comments on illusory tenant: SCOTUS to affirm Louis Butler?illusory tenanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-18206856612677652642008-02-25T06:22:00.000-06:002008-02-25T06:22:00.000-06:00Thanks for stopping by, Counsellor. I admit I was ...Thanks for stopping by, Counsellor. I admit I was having a bit of fun with the "100 percent certainty" remark.<BR/><BR/>Your larger point is also well taken and it's precisely what I was (and am) planning on addressing later.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-64210907381078762872008-02-24T11:55:00.000-06:002008-02-24T11:55:00.000-06:00Well, your lede isn't quite accurate. Glynn didn't...Well, your lede isn't quite accurate. Glynn didn't presume that Butler's view <I>would</I> be affirmed (a rash prediction for a decades-long premier criminal defense attorney ); rather, he merely presumed that <I>if</I> Butler's position were adopted, then Jensen would get a new trial:<BR/><BR/><I>Milwaukee lawyer Stephen Glynn, one of the attorneys who represented Jensen, said he considers a new trial for Jensen a "100 percent certainty" if the Giles case is overturned.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, this is a bit of a quibble, but I do think there's a larger point to be made. Whether or not Butler's position ultimately prevails doesn't really matter. What's more significant is that he exercised critically independent judgment -- surely a trait we're looking for in an appellate justice. The very fact that the Court granted cert (overall, an increasingly rare event) on precisely that issue shows that Butler's dissent is well within the mainstream of legal thought. <BR/><BR/>Bill TyrolerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com