Per the Blog of Legal Times, Justice Breyer appeared sheepish at the the arcane-ness of today's opinion on the tonnage clause of the U.S. Constitution (here).
Per BLT:
At the end, Breyer told the audience, "You know now more about the tonnage clause than many."
Another observation - it appears as if the Justices are more comfortable disclosing their original research, not relying merely on the litigants' briefs. This was an interesting cite:
We can find little, if any, other personal property that it taxes. According to the State of Alaska, Valdez specifically exempts from property taxation motor vehicles, aircraft, and other vehicles, as well as business machinery. See Dept. of Community and Economic Development, Division of Community and Business Development, Office of the State Assessor, Alaska Taxable 2001, p. 20 (Jan. 2002), (Table 4), online at http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/Taxable/AKTaxable2001.pdf (as visited June 10, 2009, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file).
As visited June 10, 2009?
This reminds me of the hubbub last year when a broad statement in a death penalty case was disputed in a military law blog (CAAFlog) post. The Supreme Court's decision didn't change, but it appears as if the Court is not going to rely solely on the briefs to provide the applicable law. Great post on social media and the Supreme Court here.
My earlier post on Polar Tankers case, including links to briefs and transcripts, here.
Comments