And people who are obsessed with virtue signaling about how anti fascist they are are beside themselves. It makes no sense.

i hate Amber Conroy Barnett but i gotta say i was a bit relieved they voted this one

i wouldnt want some trump 2.0 to come in 12 years from now and sack the CDC and pump propaganda about a fake virus (actual hoax this time) in order to justify repression of <whatever the latest iteration is mad about>

if a bunch of perverts in black wool suits from 19th century poland want to get together in groups of 500 and sweat feverishly let them have at it

the lord works in mysterious ways

I also find Hasidics to be weirdos, but there's no reason for the government to target them specifically for extra harsh rules.

Make generally applicable rules restricting indoor gatherings to less than x per 1000 sq ft. Its pretty easy, Cuomo is just an ass.

Hey man, Cuomo wrote a book

Apparently religious people by default should get extra scrutiny and restrictions, unless they want to visit the US, in which case just no.

Self quoting again for Spike and Green Habit.

Why rule on a mooted case from New York. WhY rUlE oN a MoOtEd CaSe FrOm NeW yOrK!?

2021 prediction: SCOTUS decides if a president can pardon himself.

Can someone explain this Roberts solo dissent?

I don't understand the case nor the circumstances that would get 8 justices on one side and him by himself.

I read he only dissented because the school already revised its policy and since the damages were for only one dollar

Right, that makes sense. Which is why I need more information (and a translation) of what the other 8 justices are thinking.

I've only read a little bit about this but I think this is about right.
So there was a constitutional violation of free speech rights. The student sues, the school changes the policy. The student's suit was valid because he could show that he had been harmed by the policy but lower courts decided to dismiss his case since his concern had already been addressed when the school revised the policy. The SCOTUS majority here decided that his suit is still valid and can still be heard and that Courts can still rule on the constitutional issue presented even if that policy being challenged no longer exists.

Is Roberts accurate in thinking this opens up the lower courts to be passed over by certain cases if the SC feels there is still precedent to be determined? That would be a major change, no?

They've had at least one case of a state legislature reversing a law before it could be heard by the court to avoid establishing a precedent. As they went with that being moot, there's nothing stopping the state from passing the same law again after the court declares the case moot, and then repealing it when it gets appealed to SCOTUS again. Perhaps they want to send a message that they won't always allow legislatures or other entities to play moot chicken.

Hadn't thought of that, but that then makes me wonder about Roberts's view of it even more. This is so strange to me. Is anybody else so confused by the situation?

Roberts seems scared of establishing new precedents on divisive issues. Please don't pack the court I'll do whatever you want vibes.

But if the other 8 agree, why would this inspire calls for adding justices. It's making more sense, so thanks for helping my mind get there.

I think based on his history Roberts likes when the Court is able to duck ruling on a controversial issue based on a technicality (lack of standing for abortion cases, moot for the NY gun law) or even ruling that a particular issue (partisan gerrymandering) isn't justiciable any longer so they don't have to rule on it in the future. The majority's ruling here might make that tactic slightly more difficult. He might specifically be worried that the 5 other conservatives will take the opportunity to rule on controversial cases like the NY gun case when his preferred tactic is often avoidance.

(Totally playing armchair psychologist here, take this post with several large grains of salt.)

What exactly did Thomas do WRT to the socials?

Some version of if they moderate in this manner (banning Trump), they should lose some protections of Section 230 and be treated more like a utility.

This is close enough for headlines, but not nearly nuanced enough to accurately convey his position.