While it doesn't have quite the umphf of Flood v. Kuhn, it is a fun piece of writing on a throw-away statement.

It seems that dissents from denial of cert. are becoming more common. An OSB Bulletin does a nice discussion of the issue.

Sometimes these little opinions may matter. One of the Guantánamo detainee cases this year was heard and decided against the government after reconsideration following a Kennedy dissent from the original denial of cert.

Why didn't they accept Cert and reverse to resolve the conflict among the states? This kind of "back door" precedent needs to be let in the front door.

Allan: The Kennedy dissent stressed that the Court needed to hear this case, sure, but the real issue was Kennedy himself. As a the center pivot on an issue that would resolve 5-4 either way, he's the vote. And, since he remained silent as to his intention, neither side was willing to supply the four votes necessary to take the case.

Genop: I feel your pain, especially since its well-settled that, "[t]he denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times." United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490, 43 S.Ct. 181, 182, 67 L.Ed. 361 (1923); cited recently in Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 132 L.Ed.2d 63 (1995).

Some of you libs out there might learn a thing or two from the CJ. Dissent with a smile beats the hell out of the rage the left has spewed for the last 8 years.

Given that we're about to enter another Wilsonian era of suppression of disent, this time via claiming anyone against the left is racist, I'll take Justice Roberts' style of dissent anyday.

we're about to enter another Wilsonian era of suppression of disent,

I think that's a bit too much to hope for.

"'ll take Justice Roberts' style of dissent anyday." What, hollow venting without establishing precedent? How did racism enter the thread?
Roberts' dissent is a clarion call to lawyers everywhere to bring the Court the right case. Suppression of dialogue is hardly relevant to this topic. I believe the power of dissent is the point here. Obviously, very much alive - no suppression there. Better use a different post to advance your agenda.

Lexus Libertarian needs to provide some support for this claim "another Wilsonian era of suppression of disent", or it is just made up from thin air.

And TLG must disagree.

TLG

"Dissent with a smile beats the hell out of the rage the left has spewed for the last 8 years."

I agree with your idea that dissent with a smile can be wonderfully effective, but have you read any of the dissents authored by Scalia or Thomas over the last 8 years? Talk about spewing rage.

It looked to me like the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pretty thoroughly screwed up the probable cause issue. I wish the Court would get back to deciding more cases and resolving some of the split authority that's out there in the circuits and in state supreme courts.