The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
Meanwhile, while the Title VII cases are getting all the attention today, Thomas continues to express skepticism on qualified immunity, the terrible feature of law that's thankfully been getting a lot of scrutiny recently in the BLM protests. It's the last opinion on this list of orders:
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
tragabigzanda wrote:
Does this effectively block Trump's move on protections from last week? I know that's about health insurance, but don't have the time to dig into all the details right now.
I haven't dug into the details of that yet, either, but:
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
simple schoolboy wrote:
Green Habit, whats with the Court and dodging any and all cases regarding 2A? Is there any circuit split that might compell them to revisit the issue?
Oh there's definitely a circuit split, but even that won't compel them, no matter what the tradition says. My guess is that Roberts has cold feet over DC v. Heller and doesn't want to push the issue further, with everyone else either wanting to overturn that case or expand on it. If so, we may be stuck in a 4-1-4 holding pattern with only regular angry dissents from denial of cert, as we say today, until there's a meaningful change in personnel.
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22274
Congrats to the Gays and Neil Gorsuch for proving the haters wrong
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
I thought I read that they both voted in favor of LGBTQ protections.
Nah, Gorsuch and Roberts. Kavanaugh dissented.
Before this case Kavanaugh has mostly done whatever Roberts has done, so maybe that's what you're thinking of.
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
I believe this article is garbage, because it completely neglects what I think is really going on here:
The SC is currently weighing Espinoza v. MT Department of Revenue, for which it heard arguments back in January. The outcome will have impacts on whether or not states can allow tax deductions for those who donate to private school programs.
Taken in tandem with Trump's/Davos's soft rollback of Obama's policies around Title IX, the net result would likely be enormous amount of both Federal funding and state tax dollars being allocatable to individual districts and schools according to the whims of the Board of Education/Superintendent of Public Instruction. It would spell further doom for public schools, and increased tax funding for private (religious) schools.
What I'm smelling here is that Trump thinks he's going to get a winning headline in the ruling on Espinoza (which I fully expect he will), and he's trying to plant the seed to pivot away from both the LGBTQ ruling, as well as all the other general headlines.
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22482 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Is the plan to win Espinoza, and then bring a case from someone with no kids who wants a refund because THEIR family doesn't get any benefit from public schools?
Then ...
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
Reportedly 5-4 with Roberts in the majority. This was his reasoning:
Quote:
We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote. "We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients."
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Concurrences and dissents all over the place. Looking forward to GH's summary.
Looks like the controlling opinion is that Trump has the right to end DACA but the method of doing so was capricious and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
4/5 wrote:
Concurrences and dissents all over the place. Looking forward to GH's summary.
Looks like the controlling opinion is that Trump has the right to end DACA but the method of doing so was capricious and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.
Yeah, those are the words I'm seeing too.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum