Oops, Justice Sotomayor did it again in phone argument
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor may need a refresher course on how to use her telephone.
For the second day, the justice had difficulty joining in the questioning during the Supreme Court’s telephone arguments.
On Monday, when it was Sotomayor’s turn to ask a question, Chief Justice John Roberts called her name and then there was a long pause. Roberts called her name a second time before her voice was heard. She said, “I’m sorry, chief,” before beginning her questioning.
On Tuesday, Roberts had to again call her name twice before she came on the line. She said, “I’m sorry, chief, did it again.”
Justice Thomas did it again, asking questions
Justice Clarence Thomas has done it again. The Supreme Court’s longest-serving justice has asked questions on the second day the high court is hearing arguments by telephone with the audio broadcast live.
Asking a question wouldn’t be a big deal for any of the other justices. Most ask a few questions in each argument. But that’s not Thomas’ style. Before Monday it had been more than a year since Thomas asked a question.
In Tuesday’s case about U.S. aid to foreign groups working to combat HIV/AIDS, Thomas started by asking government attorney Christopher Michel: “The respondent seems to argue that your guidelines ... actually support their argument. What do you think of that?”
Thomas has been on the court since 1991. He has said he thinks his colleagues pepper lawyers with too many questions. He once went 10 years between asking questions at argument.
U.S. Supreme Court declines to take up Guam plebiscite case
HAGATNA, Guam (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court announced it will not review a case that could affect the political status of Guam.
The order issued Monday means a July 2019 federal appeals court ruling will stand and Guam’s native inhabitants cannot participate in a political status plebiscite, The Pacific Daily News reported.
The Guam government in December appealed a July 2019 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which said the island’s political status plebiscite is race-based and violates constitutionally protected voting rights.
The non-binding vote would determine whether native inhabitants prefer statehood, free association or independence from the United States.
Guam is a U.S. colony and the results of the plebiscite could have helped shape the island’s future actions involving decolonization.
The government’s appeal was considered a long shot, as the Supreme Court typically agrees to consider only about 3% of appeals. The court did not issue its reasoning for rejecting the Guam case.
Guam resident Arnold Davis filed a 2011 federal lawsuit against the Guam Election Commission after the panel denied his request to register for the plebiscite because he did not meet the legal definition of a “native inhabitant.”
Guam’s plebiscite law defines native inhabitants as people who became U.S. citizens because of the Organic Act, which establishes U.S. territories, and their descendants.
The government argued the Ninth Circuit incorrectly held that Guam’s plebiscite law is considered a “vote.” The plebiscite is instead a targeted public opinion survey that does not impact public policy, the government argued.
Davis’ attorneys asked the Supreme Court to reject the government’s petition, saying the plebiscite is not simply a non-binding survey and would commit the government to take a position on the island’s political status.
