Cato differed from Kennedy three times, from Scalia four times, and from Thomas five times among the 18 cases. While picking up Scalia and Thomas on Jardines, Cato lost both of them on AID and Windsor and additionally lost Thomas on Bailey. Of the three cases where Cato’s position did not prevail, it lost Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas twice each, but not on the same cases: it lost Kennedy on Salinas and Kebodeaux, while losing Scalia and Thomas on Salinas and City of Arlington.
Cato argued in Jardines that a police dog sniff is a search, a position the Court agreed with 5-4 with a majority consisting of Scalia writing, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Eeeeeek. This is a little bit fishy. You probably agreed with the JUDGMENT of Kennedy in all those cases but almost certainly not his reasoning. On that, Cato still ought to be more sympathetic to Scalia and Thomas.
[…] the Cato Institute’s remarkably successful amicus curiae season (mentioned earlier in this space) and discerns in the majority an “appetite for doctrinal resets aimed at crippling federal […]
7 Comments
Was the comparison made only with Kennedy? I am curious how things look when examining the record of Thomas.
Cato differed from Kennedy three times, from Scalia four times, and from Thomas five times among the 18 cases. While picking up Scalia and Thomas on Jardines, Cato lost both of them on AID and Windsor and additionally lost Thomas on Bailey. Of the three cases where Cato’s position did not prevail, it lost Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas twice each, but not on the same cases: it lost Kennedy on Salinas and Kebodeaux, while losing Scalia and Thomas on Salinas and City of Arlington.
Interesting! Thanks.
If the police-dog-sniff case went Cato’s way, Cato took the wrong side.
Cato argued in Jardines that a police dog sniff is a search, a position the Court agreed with 5-4 with a majority consisting of Scalia writing, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Eeeeeek. This is a little bit fishy. You probably agreed with the JUDGMENT of Kennedy in all those cases but almost certainly not his reasoning. On that, Cato still ought to be more sympathetic to Scalia and Thomas.
[…] the Cato Institute’s remarkably successful amicus curiae season (mentioned earlier in this space) and discerns in the majority an “appetite for doctrinal resets aimed at crippling federal […]