Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

This is the third in our four part discussion of the Supreme Court's October 2018 term, recently concluded. It has been a big year for the constitutional treatment of the criminal justice system, and we'll deal with four cases in that line here. We will ignore others that might have fit this theme, among them Gundy v. US (where the Court passed over an attempt to reinvigorate the nondelegation doctrine in this area) and Mitchell v. Wisconsin (involving a blood alcohol test on an unconscious man).  As always, my decisions on exclusion and inclusion in this review are final and unappealable. Excessive Fines The Bill of Rights did not originally limit the actions of state governments, only those of the federal government. That, at least, has been the reigning wisdom at least since Barron v. Baltimore (1833). As it happens, I now and then feel compelled to question the rightness of Barron , but I'll leave that aside. The various provisions of the Bill have, noneth...

Once again I pick up a weighty mantle and place it upon my willing shoulders -- I will again review for you, my beloved readers, the term of the US Supreme Court just passed. This one will be remembered as the term that began with credible rape allegations against President Trump's nominee for an open position on the court, and that ended at about the same time a woman was publishing credible accusations of rape by President Trump himself. It is perhaps weirdly appropriate then that this term, more than other recent terms, has been concerned with issues of the constitutional questions raised by criminal procedure. We'll get to some of them Saturday. This term, too, began with a sense in many quarters that a fatal balance had been tipped. With Kavanaugh, there are now two Justices appointed by Donald Trump, who presumably are inclined to combine with the three who were appointed by one or another of the Presidents Bush. That adds up to five votes. But Supreme Court de...