US Supreme Court Discussions

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's a pretty low bar, too, but it clearly wasn't met here. I'm still surprised that Roberts acknowledged that.

[yovargas]

Thank you, Túrin, that was a helpful response.

[Inanna]

What Yov said.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sorry that my response was unhelpful.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[Inanna]

V! Really. I would be lost half the time without you translating legalese.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Another HUGE win in the Supreme Court. Or rather, the avoidance of a huge loss.

The court (with Roberts once again providing the deciding vote) blocked the Louisiana law that would have largely banned abortions in the state by requiring that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. This would have closed virtually all clinics in the state, and is widely accepted by experts to not be medically necessary. The majority decision was written by Justice Breyer, with Roberts writing a concurring decision basically saying that while he doesn't really agree with the legal reasoning, he can't justify overturning the precedent set just a few years ago in 2016 when the court overturned a virtually identical law in Texas, with Justice Kennedy providing the deciding vote (with Roberts joining the dissent).

[Inanna]

[Frelga]

The fate of Americans is ultimately decided by five unelected people.

[RoseMorninStar]

The fate of Americans is ultimately decided by five unelected people.

For better or worse. One of the reasons picks are so important.

V, I'm glad you posted that bit because the article I had read left me confused as to exactly what happened.

[Dave_LF]

The fate of Americans is ultimately decided by five unelected people.

I'm intrigued by an argument I read somewhere that the size of the Supreme Court should be expanded, and not just by like 2 or 4 justices, but something more on the order of 100.

[Inanna]

The fate of Americans is ultimately decided by five unelected people.

For better or worse. One of the reasons picks are so important.

V, I'm glad you posted that bit because the article I had read left me confused as to exactly what happened.

Same here. I knew Roberts said yes, and because of “precedence”, but not that he had dissented the last time!

Regarding the number of justices, the problem won’t change until we have this 2-party split. Which is so weird - the American population does not split so neatly into two camps on every issue!

[Inanna]

V, would like your opinion on this opinion regarding Roberts’ vote:


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/02/opin ... berts.html?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Inanna, my opinion of that opinion piece is very high. Linda Greenhouse has described the situation very well, she is clearly very knowledgeable about the issue, knows the law, knows the dynamics of the Court, and her point of view is virtually identical to my own.

That having been said, I'm not optimistic about the future of abortion in this country.

[Inanna]

Thanks, V. So you believe, as she does, that Roberts left open that loophole deliberately?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, absolutely.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[Inanna]

Bah. Thanks!

[Inanna]

FYI:



Clicked from NYTimes.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The court ruled that states can penalize faithless electors and otherwise enforce pledges, avoiding chaos. They also ruled that political robocalls to cell phones can be banned. That's it for today, so the big cases of Trump's tax returns, the ACA contraception case, and the religious ministerial exception to employment discrimination cases are still to come.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Two bad decision today in my view. The court sided with the Trump administration's attempt to end the ACA's contraception mandate, and greatly expanded the 'ministerial exception' in employment discrimination. I'll say more later when I have more time.

Tomorrow they announce the Trump tax cases and I think there is one other, but I don't remember at the moment.

ETA:

"This sweeping result is profoundly unfair. The Court is not only wrong on the facts, but its error also risks upending
antidiscrimination protections for many employees of religious entities. Recently, this Court has lamented a perceived “discrimination against religion.” E.g., Espinoza v Montana Dept. of Revenue, ante, at 12. Yet here it swings the pendulum in the extreme opposite direction, permitting religious entities to discriminate widely and with impunity for reasons wholly divorced from religious beliefs. The inherent injustice in the Court’s conclusion will be impossible to ignore for long, particularly in a pluralistic society like ours. One must hope that a decision deft enough to remold Hosanna-Tabor to fit the result reached today reflects the Court’s capacity to cabin the consequences tomorrow.

I respectfully dissent."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor in dissent

[RoseMorninStar]

One of the issues is that companies (like Hobby Lobby) will proclaim they are 'ministerial entities' because they are a Christian based company and sell (some) religious goods.