The Supreme Court

[Green Habit]

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:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_f2bh.pdf

[Green Habit]

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:

[simple schoolboy]

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?

[Green Habit]

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.

[96583UP]

Congrats to the Gays and Neil Gorsuch for proving the haters wrong

[elliseamos]

Congrats to the Gays and Neil Gorsuch for proving the haters wrong

Truly shocked at he and Brett's performance.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[B]

Congrats to the Gays and Neil Gorsuch for proving the haters wrong

It's one decision. We're not planning Ginsberg's retirement party just yet.

[elliseamos]

Brett? He was one of the dissenters, no?

I thought I read that they both voted in favor of LGBTQ protections.

[4/5]

Brett? He was one of the dissenters, no?

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.

[elliseamos]

Brett? He was one of the dissenters, no?

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.

Congrats to the Gays and Neil Gorsuch for proving the haters wrong

Truly shocked at he and Brett's his performance.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[B]

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 ...

[4/5]

DACA lives.

[McParadigm]

Just saw that. Wow

[Mickey]

Reportedly 5-4 with Roberts in the majority. This was his reasoning:

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."

[4/5]

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.

[Mickey]

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.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[digster]

I feel like it's possible there's no one who would prefer Biden win than John Roberts.