Very good news. I was scared when I read about this.

The Supreme Court backs citizens right to vote without undue burden? Damn liberal Justices!

i too was scared, and am THRILLED with this ruling.
Thank you sooooo much, ew!

Trying to figure out how the vote broke down.

I’d drink a little beer if it came down to Kennedy voting on the side of enfranchisement–he regrets Bush v. Gore.

I noticed that Martin Eisenstadt, the blogger/pundit/war profiteer, is in the news again as the McCain insider who broke the story connecting “Joe the plumber” to Charles Keating. I recently shot an unauthorized mini documentary on Martin Eisenstadt called “The Last Republican” that I am showing as a webseries on my youtube channel, “youkaysam”. http://www.youtube.com/user/youkaysam
At times charming and knowledgeable, Martin is, in fact, a dangerous McCain surrogate who hides behind layers and half truths that I like to believe I succeeded in identifying and exposing.

Whee hee

I take that back–they’re not telling who voted how.

It was per curium.

We express no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented. Respondents, however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO.

Some of us have been pounding the pavement on campuses, small towns, inner cities, county fairs etc etc increasing registrations ever since the Supreme Court Judicial Coup in 2000. The number of people out on campuses this year focused on increasing registrations was astounding. This is such good news.

The Supreme Court sounds like they are taking the disenfranchisement of voters far more seriously than in 2000.

I hope congress learns this election season where HAVA’s flaws need repair. Prof Hasen kindly has posted the per curiam opinion in Brunner v OH RepubParty, like ew says, who exactly was it who voted in favor?, given the deflection at this late phase in the campaign represents some slowing of a new broad spectrum suppression of voters strategem of Republican “leaders”. I wonder just how much rollback Mukasey implemented in that longstanding guideline at DoJ to counsel US attys to avoid closing seconds litigation, or even how much Mukasey might have done to prepare the voting rights section for a return to career hires rather than patronage harbingers from season Bush.

We express no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented. Respondents, however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce Section 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO.

I was wondering how on the planet a court of roberts, scalia and alito would be on the side of voters, now we see the other judges were making it clear, there is no “there” here and we will issue a sumary judgement.

I do believe roberts didn’t want to embarass himself so decided not to decide

The Supreme Court is siding with Ohio’s top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

for obama, this is game and set, not quite match though…that happens on the 5th

Is this the Supreme Courts Mea Culpa… after the disastrous consequences of their 2000 Supreme Court Judicial decision (Coup) which resulted in the selection of President Bush? Mea Maxima Culpa

“per curiam”

[Happy Dance!!!!]

Happy Friday, everyone!

FunnyDiva

can you imagine “if” the scotus did not overthrow our government in their silent coup and instal bush into office?

the 9/11 pdb would have been heeded, the attack never would have happend, we would be investing in the industry of cooling the planet, saving our wild life, protecting our envirnment, we would be developing alternative fuels

rush limbaugh would be claiming it’s because of al gore we are paying 2 dollars a gallon for gas

and nobody would have believed what might have happened to this country under bush

*sigh*

Actually, I find both spellings in authoritative places. Is there anyone whose Latin is good enough to explain why we find both spellings?

Chris Matthews will be all over this tonight.

I can hear our nations concerned citizens clapping. Tonight I sit at a table of 8 with Senator Sherrod Brown at the Athens County Democratic dinner ( a seat for a peasant at the big table). Any particular questions you think I should ask?

Great News!

Woohoo!!! Popping a can of Diet Pepsi in celebration!!

I get sick thinking about it. This makes me cry. The lives that would have been saved, the injuries, the Iraqi refugees the young soldiers that I know and don’t know who have returned from Iraq who will mentally and physically suffer for the rest of their lives. The wildfires set in the middle east.

I really feel sick when I think about it.

per wiki;

The Latin term per curiam translates as “by the court as a whole”.[1]

does pig-latin count?

Well, this being Friday and all, tropical drinks with little umbrellas in ‘em might be in order, too.

Great news!

(Although I am bothered somewhat that we’re celebrating the fact that the SCOTUS has merely reaffirmed the basic American right to register and vote. What’s wrong with this picture?)

Thanks for such good news EW!

Off topic but MSNBC has live coverage of a fired up speech he is making in Virgina – slamming McSame on the economy to the huge crowd.

does that mean they all voted the same way? Or just that we will never know how they voted

“Obama” giving fired up speech live on MSNB.

Well, ok … but I would still like to know teh grammar, I guess because I see so many examples of the variant. I used to know teh grammar, but life, y’know.

ah, but jeb would be elected this term instead of barack

iamal

I believe all it means is they decline to say, that they know the outcome regardless of the count

unanimous decisision would be they all agreed

OT – Would that this Bill of Rights issue had the same support from SCOTUS:

EFF Challenges Constitutionality of Telecom Immunity in Federal Court

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Thursday challenged the constitutionality of a law aimed at granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president’s illegal domestic wiretapping program.

In a brief filed in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, EFF argues that the flawed FISA Amendments Act (FAA) violates the federal government’s separation of powers as established in the Constitution and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law…

The full brief is here (PDF).

The summary of evidence is here (PDF).

Thank you EW . . . . for this and all you do! and to FDL for our “real” news.

note to self: make contribution today to FDL for access to reality.

“Obama” giving fired up speech live on MSNB.

“It ain’t right!”

hmmm, wonder if they focus-grouped that?

“curia” is nominative for court, not “curium”. It’s feminine first declension and the requisite ending with the preposition “per” is “-am”.

does pig-latin count?

Hmmm…I’ll have to try it here:

Pig-Latin Generator

The Supreme Court is siding with Ohio’s top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

Seems like even the Supreme Court can’t stand the Repugs anymore.

heh.

“It ain’t right” = “Ityay aintyay ightray”.

Hey, that’s kinda fun.

Arakbay Obama”yay”!

Amazing. After years of rewriting or erasing, they actually protect US citizens from the slings and arrows of the GOP.

I am going to do an oxydown on this, come by and participate when you see it!

Will this have impact on some of the other Repub tricks in states like WI and CO? I know in WI the AG has a lawsuit pending over similar issues as this OH case.

No way. Hillary would have been in line after eight years of Gore. You can bet your ass that was the plan.

The Republicans found it necessary to investigate lies about a Blow job but proved that investigating an intelligence snowjob was not important.

Pukes trying to generate a big whoop in NM over some “voter fraud” they say they found. Let’s see where it goes, most likely nowhere.

OT – and it may have been already mentioned:

Colin Powell on Meet the Press Sunday, possible announcement of an endorsement.

they know OBL got his wish “to witness the U.S. become a shadow of its former self”…they know they helped with this

“How exactly do you intend to legislatively destroy the business model which supports the Fox News Channel?”

Who exactly respects Powell anyway?

OT Sen Kit Bond has the liar pulpit @ msnbc now> Did Someone set his face on fire?

I am sure Former Senator Dewine is whining along with those Republican Judges in Cinci

Its “curiam” not “curium”.

The former – curiam – is a dative feminine. “Per” is a dative preposition.

The latter – curium – is element #96 on the periodic table of elements, abbreviation “Cm”, maned for Marie Curie.

I’ve read an Obama endorsement is likely-which would effectively kill McCain’s foreign policy cred and legitimize Obama’s.

voting-in-progress….

Thank you very much. I can follow that. And I’ve always wanted to be a member of a curia. Think what I could do for humankind.

they would have been demonizing gore and brutalizing hillary, it would have been easy for them to “campaign for change”

but all that’s off topic, come to my diary about it to discuss!

Thanks ew.

digg

EW, thanks for keeping up with this evolving story. Brunner is a sharp thinker. From what I hear, she knew she had a solid chance to get this ruling.

Glad she stayed firm to the voter concerns.

OT on ACORN. When the mess at Abu Ghraib came out, it was a “few bad apples” that caused it and the rest of the system was fine. But now, a small number of ACORN contractors may have accepted questionable applications, yet, the whole organization is somehow culpable. Why is that?
Never mind, “simple answer to simple question…”
So, what prevents some republican operatives to get hired and deliberately file false applications, knowing fully well that ACORN will flag those? Can ACORN track the filers of the bad apps?
Not exactly a conspiracy but a fairly easily done false flag operation.

Don’t know if you saw this downstairs…

I love taking my kids with me when I vote and I always give them the stickers. *g*

So…who ya votin’ for, anyway?

good question. would sure like to see the Senators (Biden, Kerry, Kennedy Boxer etc) get a hold of those NSA intercepts that they were demanding during the John Bolton nomination hearings. The ones that allegedly had to do with the NSA taping into Colin Powells negotiations with Iran and other nations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..sa.comment
The Bolton confirmation hearings have revealed his constant efforts to undermine Powell on Iran and Iraq, Syria and North Korea. They have also exposed a most curious incident that has triggered the administration’s stonewall reflex. The foreign relations committee has discovered that Bolton made a highly unusual request and gained access to 10 intercepts by the National Security Agency, which monitors worldwide communications, of conversations involving past and present government officials. Whose conversations did Bolton secretly secure and why?

why do rethugs hate the franchise? why do they hate Democracy?

Mornin’ all.

OT Sen Kit Bond has the liar pulpit @ msnbc now> Did Someone set his face on fire?

thanks for saying it for me. Andrea Mitchell sounded a little awkward calling him on his BS, but she did it.

They’re still going with the terrorist meme and a Senator is repeating this crap? What. a. jerk. He should know better.

I am so sick of this. A good organization that both parties support is now under fire because McCain is a big baby.

Thanks also — I didn’t know that about the periodic table. I’m not sure it went that high in my youth.

Hmmm… the Guardian (UK) says it was 9-0:

“Scotus is what we call the Supreme Court (as in Supreme Court of the United States), and today, by a refreshingly unanimous 9-0 count, the high court tossed a Republican effort to make the Ohio state official in charge of administering the election scour a list of new voters for any discrepancies.”

How can we verify, just out of curiosity? Anybody know?

I should hope the fuck so…now!

As well as the ACORN crap. Someone needs to slap these fools upside the head.

oops. sorry for reacting vehemently. Thank you, ew, for keeping on this and for all that you do!

Shorter SCOTUS: “Don’t waste our time, WATBs.”

I’m in the middle of writing a brief and stopped by for a minute.

The quote you put up indicates not only that the Ohio case is pretty much over, but also that the S.Ct. is putting a stop to the Rethug machine pretty much anywhere, at least as far as with respect to this angle of vote suppression. In short – they are ruling there is no clear-cut argument that the Republicans even have standing to sue to compel a SoS to do what they want. That ruling would apply nationwide regardless of what the individual states’ laws say on databases, etc.

Remember my lecture on injunctions a week or two ago, in the context of the Michigan case? Same principle, but a different part of the 4 part test – the plaintiffs have not shown their right to relief is clear. Therefore, no injunction. If you don’t clearly have standing – which is what the S.Ct. says. The test, iluminated by the cite to the Gonzaga case, is whether Congress unambiguously created both a federal right and a federal remedy when it passed the statute which the party is trying to enforce. From the Gonzaga case:

We now reject the notion that our cases permit anything short of an unambiguously conferred right to support a cause of action brought under § 1983. Section 1983 provides a remedy only for the deprivation of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. Accordingly, it is rights, not the broader or vaguer “benefits” or “interests,” that may be enforced under the authority of that section. . . .
We have recognized that whether a statutory violation may be enforced through § 1983 “is a different inquiry than that involved in determining whether a private right of action can be implied from a particular statute.” Wilder, supra, at 508, n. 9. But the inquiries overlap in one meaningful respect—in either case we must first determine whether Congress intended to create a federal right. Thus we have held that “[t]he question whether Congress . . . intended to create a private right of action [is] definitively answered in the negative” where a “statute by its terms grants no private rights to any identifiable class.” Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560, 576 (1979). For a statute to create such private rights, its text must be “phrased in terms of the persons benefited.” Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 692, n. 13 (1979). We have recognized, for example, that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 create individual rights because those statutes are phrased “with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class.” Id., at 691 (emphasis added).3 But even where a statute is phrased in such explicit rights-creating terms, a plaintiff suing under an implied right of action still must show that the statute manifests an intent “to create not just a private right but also a private remedy.” Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 286 (2001) (emphases added).

So, I think that’s a lot bigger than just Ohio (as if that weren’t big enough).

I think the S.Ct. is saying: resolve this election at the ballot box, not the courthouse.

Oh – and the (winning) attorney for Gonzaga in that earlier case?

John G. Roberts, Jr.

Does that help you break out the voting?

you make me weep

OT: re the Periodic Table

Glenn Seaborg discovered numerous of the transuranic elements including plutonium. He did not want to use Pl for it, instead called it Pu. He is also the discoverer/namer of curium.

sure hope this is true stop the assault

New Blue Texan post at the mothership front page: “Peggy Noonan And Kathleen Parker Survey The Flaming Train Wreck That Is The GOP”

This also impacts Wisconsin. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

[…] A lawyer for the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board said today’s court order affirms his argument that Van Hollen does not have the authority to bring his lawsuit. But a state Department of Justice lawyer said the order would have no effect on Van Hollen’s ability to continue his suit because he is trying to enforce state election laws – not federal ones – as a state official.[…]

I was explaining why it’s “curiam”, not “curium”. And “-am” is accusative, not dative.

I believe the vote in SCOTUS was 9 to ZIP!!!!!!

sorry about the snippet out of context but here I go;

But even where a statute is phrased in such explicit rights-creating terms, a plaintiff suing under an implied right of action still must show that the statute manifests an intent “to create not just a private right but also a private remedy.”

I am not happy with this if I am understanding it correctly

they might be making precedent to say;

“even if there is a right, implied or written, the court must remain silent if there is no remedy unless commented in law”

or in other words, there is no redress that the law doesn’t carve for itself

is that a valid interpretation of this passage?

if so;

BAH

Yes, I was concerned about the amount of influence that Ken Blackwell and John McCains’ friend, Ohio Pastor Rod Parsley would have on voter suppression. This may be off topic, but has anyone connected the dots between Parsley,Pastor Hagee and Sarah Palin? Here’s a daily kos excerpt,published BEFORE Sarah Palin was named VP. Sarah Palin, PastorJohn Hagee and Pastor Rod Parsley are ALL involved with the Dominionist Assembly of God movement.————————-”Parsley’s church is the home of no less than two separate national, and increasingly influential, dominionist organisations–both of which are explicitly designed to encourage churches to violate federal laws against electioneering.

The first group, Center for Moral Clarity, is a major lobbying group founded in 2002–and is likely to be the ultimate successor to Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, or eventually as influential as those orgs. CMC can legitimately be seen as a front organisation of World Harvest, and engages in explicit electioneering for specific bills; it also includes an entire section on spin doctoring . The second–and potentially the more dangerous–group that Rod Parsley is head of is what amounts to a political engine within churches. Parsley founded the Ohio Restoration Movement–a group also popularly known as the “Patriot Pastor” movement–and the “Joel’s Army” imagery even filters down here, including literal imagery from “Christian Patriot” militia groups:

These questions take on even greater meaning, when we consider the alternative. Rising from the vacuum of prophetic witness, is the ultra-right wing politics of intimidation and hate. A movement calling itself “Patriot Pastors” is now mobilizing (mostly rural Christians) to gather thousands of ” Ohio for Jesus” pastors and tens of thousands of lay people calling themselves “Christian Minutemen.”

Called the Ohio Restoration Project, this group intends to take over the Republican Party in Ohio . Once they have done this through electoral primaries, they will also run all Democrats off the state map.

Their plan is to run good people out of office if they are pro-choice or supportive of equal rights for gays. In their website, these so-called Patriot Pastors will “shoot down” any politicians or candidates who they deem “vague or noncommittal on issues of abortion and gay rights.”

They have transportation set up for the elderly and child care for the young to attend their “God Rallies.” Rod Parsley of World Harvest Church in Canal Winchester is their leader. These “Patriot Pastors” are a scary lot.

Ohio is by far not the only state that Parsley has been promoting “Patriot Pastors” and “Restoration Movements”. Texas and South Carolina, among other states, have “Restoration Movements” tied to World Harvest Church, and it has been claimed that such movements may be active in 11 states; the group in Texas has been the subject of legal challenges, and it would appear the “Restoration Movements” largely switched support from Huckabee to McCain. The ultimate goal is to take the movement national…and people who aren’t sufficiently zealous are, again, compared to “Good Germans” by the movement’s leaders:

In their for-or-against-us worldview, there is no room for honest disagreement, even among fellow Christians: Russell Johnson, the leader of Ohio’s “restoration” project compares people who sit out his political crusade to Christians in Nazi Germany who sang hymns louder to drown out the wailing of Jews being led to their deaths.

As it is, the Ohio group has been disturbingly effective. Parsley’s network of pastoral-lobbyists were a major force in assisting former Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell–who, notably, was very closely associated with the attempted “Gothardisation” of the entire state of Ohio. In fact, they were quite heavily involved with the attempt to get Kenneth Blackwell elected as governor of Ohio (an effort that fortunately failed). ———————–daily kos,May 23,2008-posted bt dog emporer

Ok, that pre-dates me. I should have known. I was so bad at chemistry, though. The only part I liked was the ethers and the esters — lovely perfume, and really fascinating formulae.

OK – I did a lousy job of laying out the format on that. The part you quote is from the case of Gonzaga v. Doe, a 2002 Supreme Court case (successfully argued for Gonzaga by now-Chief Justice Roberts while he was in private practice). That was the case where a student at Gonzaga University was alleged in a conversation between students to have engaged in some sexual misconduct (I think it was that he got laid, a Bad Thing at a Catholic school) and a faculty member overheard it. He wanted to be a teacher and, in Washington, the college is supposed to give an affidavit of good moral character to the state before the state will certify him to teach. After investigating, the faculty member turned around and let the state know of the private information which implicated Doe, and the state refused to certify Doe to teach. Doe sued under the Family and Educational privacy act of 1974, which prohibits schools receiving federal funding (like just about every college, including Gonzaga) from releasing educational information (like the overheard conversation) without prior permission from the person implicated.

The Supreme Court decided that Doe did not have standing to sue because the Privacy Act did not clearly create a right and a remedy for violation of that right.

So, your upset is appropriate.

You need to remember that one of the key themes of Roberts’ jurisprudence (as with his mentor and former boss Rehnquist) was and is limiting the standing of individuals to sue the government, and limiting standing to sue, generally. The Gonzaga case was right up his alley, so to speak, when he took it and argued it.

This is a good example of how a “neutral” principle of law – in this instance limits on standing – can be seen as “good” or “bad” depending solely on whose ox is being gored and how. I thought very ill of the Gonzaga decision when it came down (bad for privacy), but not so much today when it makes the Ohio Republicans siddown and shuttup.

Also (for the same reason?), it’s “ad nauseam.”

Yeah, agreed both here and your earlier. However, I ran across this at TPM, and I had the same general thought when I heard of this SCOTUS ruling. Beware of what you ask for and celebrate. This decision seems admirable at this moment, and for the instant purpose, but it is in line with a trend that sucks big eggs and that we have consistently decried in other areas; i.e. the constant move to shut off avenues of private standing and redress:

It’s always surprising when the Supreme Court takes what seems to be a position favorable to Democrats on voting issues. But it’s worth keeping in mind that while the immediate consequences of the decision are good for Ohio Democrats, the long-term consequences may be different. Any time the Supreme Court curtails standing or limits private rights of action, they are limiting the ability of private people, such as civil rights litigants, to enforce legislation. There may be some value to limiting these rights in election cases, given that these issues in particular could be particularly vulnerable to political (i.e. Dem v. Repub.) lawsuits. But as a general matter, the 25-year erosion of standing and private right of action has had pretty negative results for civil rights litigants.

For example, in 2001, the Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Scalia, decided that there is no private right of action in Title VI disparate impact cases. The case, Alexander v. Sandoval, involved the right to drivers’ license examinations in one’s native language; plaintiffs argued that the failure to accommodate non-English speakers resulted in disparate-impact discrimination based on national origin. The Alabama district court and the 11th Circuit, no paragons of progressive thought, ruled for the plaintiffs; the Supreme Court reversed, saying that the relevant section of the Civil Rights Act did not provide for a private right of action. This means that the only way to enforce this type of civil rights violation is through action by the Department of Justice. Maybe this is somewhat tolerable when there is a Democratic administration interested in enforcing civil rights. But it’s useless in a Republican admininstration devoted to setting those rights back.

So: no matter how glad we may be about Brunner case, we might want to stay worried about the principle of the case overall.

The Supreme Court sounds like they are taking the disenfranchisement of voters far more seriously than in 2000

Forgive me for a snappish reaction, but that wouldn’t be hard, now, would it?! Did they do ANYTHING at all other than actively snatch and toss voters rights back in 2000?

I’m so proud of my Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. She inherited a huge mess and has worked so hard to ensure the voting process is fair, in spite of the GOP efforts to distract with bright, shiny objects. She is an inspiration. One very sharp lady.

Yes. We won’t let our guard down. Issue by issue, one foot in front of the other, and maybe we can make some progress, eventually, in restoring the people’s Constitutional Rights.

I’ll join your little cheering squad, if I may. Not only has Brunner inherited an office and heaven knows what else, in total disarray, but she was sharply criticized and roadblocks thrown down to disrupt her attempts to clean the place up. By whom? Repubble party hacks, of course.

I’m hoping they sense a shift in the winds and at least pretending to clean up their act a bit. More, please, reforms from top to bottom of the system.

Thank you Secy of State Brunner.

Daily Kos: Here’s why McCain may have stepped away from Rod ParsleyMay 23, 2008 … Rod Parsley–head of World Harvest Church in Columbus, OH–is not only a major …. Much of why Kenneth Blackwell lost was because of …
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/…..393/521338 – 51k – Cached – Similar pages

Snap away. They lowered our expectations

“per curiam” is not a precise synonym for “unanimous”.

Per curiam decisions are quite rare, and over time are increasingly so, due to the effects of stare decisis [the formalities of precedents], and particularly with panels having members with large ideological and/or jurisprudential differences – like this one.

Yet per curiam decisions offer a few uses, among their less-appreciated ones being plausible deniability. This is purely by way of illustration, but assume a fat, jolly whacked-out thug of a justice on the Supreme Court were to wish to attend the upcoming mid-winter session of the Federalist Society, or to pine for an invitation to a workshop on the future role of the SCOTUS in determining whether there are possible limits to Article II executive branch powers and if so where those might be found, if for no reason more complicated than his love of good booze, cigars and basking in the love of his fans. This result, without more [and I for one do not expect any more, not now and not from this level], would give said justice the wiggle room to say something like: Hey – Don’t blame me! It was obvious where the majority stood on this, and frankly it’s more than a little awkward when the GOP launches such attacks at the last minute.

As to the report from the Guardian, I think it’s possible the reporter may not have understood. The top court in Great Britain is called the Privy Council of the House of Lords, and unlike the SCOTUS it has no independent power under any constitution. The top courts in Australia and Canada are set up more like the SCOTUS, that is, under a national constitution, plus I get the impression the SCO Canuckia has super powers that can only be overcome by krytonite or a national constitutional conference resulting in amendment – a process maybe even more convoluted given as far as I can tell the eskimos haven’t had any amendments since Trudeau came down from the mountain with their tablets.

[I’m hedging on that. skdadl? Ishmael? Call me … if I’m out to lunch.]

Nonetheless, per the comment from bmaz @ 81, I agree that there’s a cloud in this silver lining, or vice versa, depending on whether you blog here or at justaminute.

However, there is the additional attractive feature that either way this episode argues for the 11th Congress to revisit the HAVA.

So much to do in 4 years – looks like it’s gonna take 8 or more.

Per Wikipedia – curium was first synthesized @ UC Berkeley in 1944. Joe Biden was 2 years old at the time.

NO!!!

“Curiam” is an accusative. “Curiae” is the dative you are looking for. And in Latin the dative never takes a preposition.