Tomorrow Morning:
Don't forget to tune in tomorrow morning for what will probably be the release of the Supreme Court's last three decisions of the Term: the school/race cases (likely win for the conservatives), the death penalty/mental illness case (likely win for the liberals), and the antitrust/retail prices case (likely win for, well, I have no idea, I didn't follow it). Lyle Denniston offers us his best guess for how the morning will unfold here.

  In a perfect world, the Court would post the opinions on the Court's website just as the opinions are announced in the courtroom. That way, the Court wouldn't induce the 30 minutes or so of anxiety that follows when Supreme Court geeks around the country know the outcome in important cases but can't yet access the opinions. But we're not yet in that perfect world, so instead we have to hit "refresh" over and over until opinions start to show up at SCOTUSblog or How Appealing around 10:30 or 10:45.

  Anyway, come back tomorrow for the goods; I'm sure we'll have commentary throughout the day.
Christopher M (mail):
My simple solution: sleep 'til 11:00, then wake up and the opinions are ready!
6.28.2007 1:08am
Respondent (mail):
I think How Appealing typically has the Westlaw version of the syllabus and majority opinion up first. But you have to wait for SCOTUS blog to read the dissents.
6.28.2007 1:17am
Respondent (mail):
"In a perfect world, the Court would post the opinions on the Court's website just as the opinions are announced in the courtroom."
In my opinion, a perfect world would have the opinions up as soon as the author of the majority finishes announcing the decision in the courtroom, or, when a dissent is read from the bench, at the conclusion of that reading. With almost no interaction with the public, the justices oration ought to get irst dibs at informing everyone outside the court who won and the basics of why, or what the dissent has to say on a given issue.
6.28.2007 1:21am
Respondent (mail):
Errata: Justices oration--> Justices' oration; irst dibs--> first dibs. Sorry
6.28.2007 1:22am
Respondent (mail):
Why do you think that the liberals will win the death penalty case? Is it because executing a delusional man is likely to run afoul of Justice Kennedy's moral sense? That's why I think the liberals will win, but I'm curious as to your reasoning.
6.28.2007 1:28am
DrGrishka (mail):

Both you and Tom Goldstein predicted that Panetti comes out as a win for liberals. I wonder why. It seems that AMK will be writing Panetti. (Inexact science, I know, but still). Given that he has been with conservatives this Term on most death penalty issues (save some peculiar Texas sentencing ones), and given that there is an additional question of "successive" petition (a type of issue that the conservative side has repeatedly used to deny relief) what makes you think that this is a victory for liberals?
6.28.2007 1:51am
Sorry, that's just what my crystal ball says. (Unfortunately I didn't get the premium ball that comes with explanations.)
6.28.2007 2:08am
courtesy police:
The continual misspelling of Prof. Kerr's first name is killing me.

It's four simple letters, people: ORIN! Not oren (that's a frequent commenter), orrin, etc.

In case you're unsure how to spell it, it's right there for you on the site about 500 times. And, in fact, it's spelled out at the beginning of this post.

The professor is a better man than I for exhibiting such restraint. Am I the only one bothered by this? Just seems to be a simple matter of respect and courtesy.
6.28.2007 2:44am
Orhen (mail):
Did somebody say my name?
6.28.2007 2:55am
DrGrishka (mail):
Fair point, CP. I guess I keep getting thrown by the double r in the last name. :) I shall be more careful.
6.28.2007 10:56am
The big suspense for me regarding Panetti will be the procedural quirks, namely the technical 2244 habeas stuff. I think it shouldn't bar them from getting to the merits but anytime the Justices ask you for a supplemental brief a week before argument asking why your claim should not be barred for some procedural infirmity, it at least raises the question of what the result will be. I think argument reflected at least some consensus though. I predict that if it does come out for the liberals Scalia or Thomas (but maybe not Roberts or Alito?) will, in addition to dissenting on the merits, make sure to dissent on procedural grounds. Scalia dissented in Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal.
6.28.2007 11:12am
Federal Dog:
"the death penalty/mental illness case (likely win for the liberals),"

Why would this be a win for "liberals?" What are you suggesting about people who are right of center politically?
6.28.2007 2:59pm