Thomas writing for eight? Really?

Prelude: for those who were paying close attention to my haiku last week: yes, I did have the procedure done and, yes, things turned out well. There is nothing nasty growing inside my butt. Prelude complete.

Anyway: I don't want to say much here about the ROYAL CARRIBEAN case issued by the US Supreme Court last week, in part because I may have something to say about it two months from now, as part of my annual round-up of all things SCOTUS.

I'll only for today note that the case has Justice Thomas writing for the court, as one of an eight-member majority thereof, with Justice Kagan the sole standout.

And my only point is to ask a question. Does anyone know of another decision within the last couple of years that came down just that way?

In many politically sensitive cases, one gets a 6-3 lineup. Sometimes the split consists of appointees of Presidents of the Republican Party versus those of Presidents of the Democratic Party, as in LOUISIANA v. CALLAIS. In other such cases of late, though, one gets a 3-6 line-up the other way, with the three Dem appointees finding three allies and ending up on the winning side (as in the tariff case) or even a 2-7 line up as in the mifepristone case, with Alito and Thomas doing their ride-or-die thing.

It seems to me that 8-1 rulings are rare on this court especially on politically sensitive matters and that when they happen Thomas is more likely to be the lone dissenter -- as in the RAHIMI gun rights case in 2024 -- than the voice of the eight.

ROYAL CARRIBEAN would seem to be a politically sensitive case, inolving US relations with Cuba, but ... here we are. Thomas turns out to be the voice of the eight, with Elena Kagan the one dissenter.

Really?

Comments

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

A Quote from Parfit

Recently I wrote a little about ethicist Derek Parfit. I've been doing further research on him since, and will now describe his Big Picture as I've come to understand it. Parfit believes that the western world only started taking ethical philosophy seriously (as a domain separate from theology) around the time Nietzsche declared that God was dead. There are only three possibilities, in terms of the God/morality issue: 1) You believe that God exists and that His commands define morality 2) You deny that God exists and, like Nietzsche, infer from this that in the absence of commands there is no right or wrong, or 3) You deny that God exists yet persist in believing and attempting to discern right and wrong. From a certain point of view there could be a fourth category, for people who believe that God exists but that His existence is irrelevant to morality, He doesn't issue commands at all, etc. Still, from DP's perspective that sort of God ...

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog