Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Sticking with my general interpretation of the Religion Clause as "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion", I'm inclined to think that the Court got this one right.

I think the trollier one is someone starting their own religion and building their own school for it.

Like this?

https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/star- ... /overview/

Um, Maine is all for more people moving up north.

Especially if you'll vote non-crazy.

All are welcome.

Also, once enough of you move there, the taxes will allow an f'n public school be built and we'll all move on from this story.

Now they say they're releasing opinions on Friday as well as tomorrow. Is a late add to the calendar like this that unusual?

Norris wrote:Now they say they're releasing opinions on Friday as well as tomorrow. Is a late add to the calendar like this that unusual?

Nope, it tends to happen this time of year when they finally figure out when they have opinions ready to go.

Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_7j80.pdf

Yeah, that §1983/Miranda opinion is a really bad one that's going to duck a lot of criticism because everyone's going to be yelling over the gun case instead.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_gfbh.pdf

It won't be the tweet-length summary of the Roberts court, but I wonder if the most important long term legacy won't be the narrowing of judicial authority and legal standing, in turn tilting the citizen/government balance strongly towards governments by taking away people's ability to take legal action against governments/officials.

Green Habit wrote:

Norris wrote:Now they say they're releasing opinions on Friday as well as tomorrow. Is a late add to the calendar like this that unusual?

Nope, it tends to happen this time of year when they finally figure out when they have opinions ready to go.

Thank you.

Green Habit wrote:Yeah, that §1983/Miranda opinion is a really bad one that's going to duck a lot of criticism because everyone's going to be yelling over the gun case instead.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_gfbh.pdf

Government officials have this sweet spot where they have immunity for their actions under the theory that they are fulfilling some necessary state action but it turns out they have almost no obligation to do specific acts so everything is at their discretion.

Immunity almost makes sense if they had real obligations.

Roe v. Wade is overturned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_6j37.pdf

Yikes.

This opens the door for Plan B and other contraceptive banning.

Looks like it was a 5-4 decision.

The sum of the opinions is 213 fucking pages (classic Alito) but I was able to get the jist by reading a few paragraphs, and it was all that I expected.

Green Habit wrote:The sum of the opinions is 213 fucking pages (classic Alito) but I was able to get the jist by reading a few paragraphs, and it was all that I expected.

Is there somewhere you would recommend that calmly, objectively, and without Handmaiden's Tale references explains why Alito is wrong in this case?

blueviper wrote:Yikes.

This opens the door for Plan B and other contraceptive banning.

Looks like it was a 5-4 decision.

That's the big question ahead. There may be enough popular opposition to abortion in some places, but I think most people will (rightly) lose their shit over losing their contraception.

According to Thomas it opens the door to saying "states rights" about a lot more then just contraceptives.

Green Habit wrote:

blueviper wrote:Yikes.

This opens the door for Plan B and other contraceptive banning.

Looks like it was a 5-4 decision.

That's the big question ahead. There may be enough popular opposition to abortion in some places, but I think most people will (rightly) lose their shit over losing their contraception.

I don't know how much that matters, a lot of state legislatures are only nominally representative and full abortion bans are not popular.

Bi_3 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:The sum of the opinions is 213 fucking pages (classic Alito) but I was able to get the jist by reading a few paragraphs, and it was all that I expected.

Is there somewhere you would recommend that calmly, objectively, and without Handmaiden's Tale references explains why Alito is wrong in this case?

I'm away from the computer right now but if I find something later I’ll post it here.

is there a specific section of the Constitution that was being used to uphold R v W ?

Mickey wrote:According to Thomas it opens the door to saying "states rights" about a lot more then just contraceptives.

If Scalia was alive that wouldn't have been a solo dissent. He "warned" in Lawrence that it was going to lead to all sorts of apocalyptic things like the same-sex marriage.