Kozinski, For The Ages

Dissenting in Alvarez v. Tracy, in which a panel upheld the lower court's denial of a habeas petition:

I have read the opinion many times and disagree with pretty much everything in it, including the numerals and punctuation. I explain why in the pages that follow, but first I pose a more basic question: How can a court committed to justice, as our court surely is, reach a result in which the litigant who can afford a lawyer is forgiven its multiple defaults while the poor, uneducated, un-counseled petitioner has his feet held to the fire? I attribute no ill will or improper motive to my excellent colleagues. They are fair, honorable and dedicated jurists who are doing what they earnestly believe is right. But we see the world very differently.

H/T Sonja West

Comments

[Ken]

He began his dissent by noting the Petitioner would "have had a fairer shake in a tribunal run by marsupials."

[Enrique Guerra-Pujol]

I guess his law clerks didn't write that dissent

[Barry]

This is a trick question, right? A 'court committed to justice'.