This week’s Slate reveals the existence of the now retired Justice David Souter’s mysterious draft dissent. Though it’s unpublished, evidently “sources” know enough about it to reveal that it’s a more potent dissent than the opinion/vote that subsumed it after Souter retired (that being Sotomayor’s later dissent vote which was a part of the minority in the 5:4 win for unfettered corporate “free speech”) .

I hope (and doubt) Souter would divulge the particulars for the sake of institutional order, but the knowledge of evidence of what he wrote-it may be somewhat probative-could be enlightening in terms of “C.U.II” (Western Traditions v. Montana AG).

It’s tenuous, even if it is for nothing more than taking judicial notice of the fact that there is a well reasoned view that “judicial strategy” played a significant role in how the original CU I case was framed and adjuducated. It’s a procedural nuance, but no one ever imagined that CU I issues would eventually be manifested in CU II so shortly thereafter.

Maybe what’s been said by the learned fellow Souter is one of those strange examples where “form/tact” actually does effect “substance/outcome”. Bullock and his like minded state AGs should be aware of this recent below the radar legal revelation…

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/antisocialpd.htm

My research on “follow the money” suggests that the campaign donation information is correct. McKinnon has never given money to Republicans or Democrats, while Sheehy and Best have donated only to Democrats.

I don’t want a Republican OR a Democrat on the Supreme Court. I want a neutral party.