<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="WordPress/2.7.1" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>lone dissent</title>
	<link>http://lonedissent.org</link>
	<description>refuge for the opinions of one</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:52:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>lone dissent: Preston v. Ferrer</title>
		<description>Justice Thomas wrote the term's second lone dissent: a terse 1-page statement where he reiterates his apparently long-held view that the FAA (Federal Arbitration Act) "does not apply to proceedings in state courts." </description>
		<link>http://lonedissent.org/?p=6</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>lone dissent: Riegel v. Medtronic</title>
		<description>Justice Ginsburg is October Term 2007's first lone dissenter.  Her dissent was 14 pages, compared to the Court's 20-page opinion and Justice Stevens' 3-page concurrence.  Stevens' was clearly sympathetic to Ginsburg's "persuasive explanation" that Congress had intended to provide more more, not less, protections to consumers, but ultimately ...</description>
		<link>http://lonedissent.org/?p=5</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>No lone dissents in the 2007 Term so far</title>
		<description>As of today, January 21, 2008 (Martin Luther King Day), the Court has issued 13 opinions in the 2007 Term, and there have been no lone dissents.

The "loneliest" dissent of the term so far has been Allen v. Siebert (Stevens, joined by Ginsburg). </description>
		<link>http://lonedissent.org/?p=3</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>oral argument: Goldberg v. Kelly</title>
		<description>Here's an audio clip of the exchange between Justice Thurgood Marshall and the attorney for New York, Mr. Laughlin, in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), argued on Monday, October 13, 1969.

Click the small speaker icon next to the link to play the clip.
"Is that what you consider Due ...</description>
		<link>http://lonedissent.org/?p=4</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>oral argument: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish</title>
		<description>[The following account is from The United States Law Week, December 1936.  I'm unaware of any transcripts of the oral arguments in this case.]

Power to Fix Minimum Wages Again Argued

The validity of minimum wage legislation was argued once more before the Supreme Court of the United States last week. ...</description>
		<link>http://lonedissent.org/?p=7</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
