|
| Concurrence | width=25px | | Other |- | width=25px | | Dissent | width=25px | | Concurrence/dissent | white-space: nowrap |Total = | 29 |- | colspan=2 | Bench opinions = 27 | colspan=2 | Opinions relating to orders = 2 | colspan=2 | In-chambers opinions = 0 |- | white-space: nowrap colspan=2 valign=top | Unanimous decisions: 2 | colspan=2 valign=top | Most joined by: Thomas (19) | colspan=2 valign=top | Least joined by: Ginsburg (3) |} |} |} | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Unanimous |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Unanimous |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, Kennedy, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer; Stevens (in part) |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Death penalty | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia dissented from the Court’s orders granting the applications of two petitioners for stay of execution of sentence of death, pending the Court's decision in ''Atkins v. Virginia'', on the issue of whether the Eighth Amendment permitted the execution of the mentally retarded. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Criminal procedure: Confrontation Clause | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia filed a statement stating he agreed with the Court's decision not to transmit to Congress proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26(b), which would have permitted witness testimony via two-way video transmission. Scalia believed this was of dubious constitutionality under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, according to the standard set forth in ''Maryland v. Craig''. He wrote that he "cannot comprehend how one-way transmission (which ''Craig'' says does not ordinarily satisfy confrontation requirements) becomes transformed into full-fledged confrontation when reciprocal transmission is added. As we made clear in ''Craig''...a purpose of the Confrontation Clause is ordinarily to compel accusers to make their accusations in the defendant’s presence—which is not equivalent to making them in a room that contains a television set beaming electrons that portray the defendant’s image. Virtual confrontation might be sufficient to protect virtual constitutional rights; I doubt whether it is sufficient to protect real ones." |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Kennedy, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |O'Connor |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |First Amendment | width=20% valign=top |Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |} ==References== * * * 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「2001 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|