Lawyerly law stuff that's interesting


In practice, not a whole lot, as it’s upholding existing precedent. The lower court seems to have gone a bit rogue.


Search the case title for various summaries if you want. eg this one, though I’m not vouching for it.



Saw this bit of relevance to our recent conversation from a couple weeks back and I wanted to post it, although I’m reluctant because the last thing I want is to rehash that conversation again…



I feel like I missed something. Is there more context to understand this exchange?


In relation to:

I think anyway. People deleted Tweets, so it’s hard to be sure in these things. Just thought it was an interesting note on why not to test judges.

In that vein it led to this story:


Yeah, here’s more about that. Kobach is a really special dude.


I would pay good money to watch the US Marshals drag him out of his office in cuffs.


Oh god, me too, but depressingly, I think we all know that this is the type of guy who fails up. He’s not going to get disbarred and disappear into obscurity running a used car lot. Kobach is going to get elected or hired over and over and become more and more prevalent, not less.

It sucks.


Well, he’ll likely still fail upward, but the two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

His position doesn’t protect him from defying a federal judge’s orders.


This could be big:

Indeed, it is no coincidence that the assault on Chevron is coming from judicial conservatives, with support from the Republican Party and an endless stream of Federalist Society white papers. In the name of a technical change to rules governing administrative law, these groups hope to blast an enduring, expanding hole in federal regulatory power. Think of it as a form of administrative law Lochnerism; while the Constitution does not allow judges to review economic policies for consistency with a robust conception of laissez-faire capitalism, the demise of Chevron will allow them to review many federal economic policies for consistency with statutes that they will read with a strong Lochnerian gloss.

That thought might be comforting to those fiercely committed to deregulation, especially since President Trump’s wave of judicial appointees can be expected to take a painfully narrow view of permissible agency activity. In my view, though, Chevron’s demise should be disconcerting to most Americans. The Judiciary may be good at interpreting laws, but it is poorly suited to the kinds of value and policy judgments inherent to statutory interpretation in this field. That is particularly true when the courts approach their task with a strong commitment to deregulation and a myopic conception of how to interpret statutes. I am no fan of many policies emanating from this administration’s agencies—and would happily see them reviewed without the benefit of judicial deference—but in the long run Chevron deference is sound legal and public policy. More important, it is well justified by considerations of expertise, institutional competence, and political accountability.



That was pretty much the implication of nominating Gorsuch, no?


Receiving money from the earnings of a prostitute.

So… like don’t rent to hookers? Or sell them food?

Given the government’s history on this sort of thing I fully expect this will make things worse and probably ruin many lives.


Who can be bothered amiright?


I’m having trouble imagining a scenario where a sincerely held religious belief would lead to the denial of basic services. The discrimination at issue in the case wasn’t a denial of service to gay persons, it was a refusal to provide a service to celebrate a gay marriage. A fine distinction to be sure, but an important one in determining where the accommodation line gets drawn. The baker could not deny his services to customers just because they were gay, or black, or Jewish or whatever. And providing a cake for a celebration isn’t a basic service like a grocery or a pharmacy. I think the line gets drawn in a different place in such cases.


Sure, but with “sincerely” held ones it’s pretty easy.

Remember, opposition to mixed race couples was “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

I mean… here’s people that still believe it and preach it:

They could claim denial of services to a black and white couple… except that those are protected classes so they can’t.

I’ll agree on the specific service. A wedding cake isn’t a basic service per se. But in my head I tend to replace “gay couple” with “interracial couple” because… it’s the same fucking thing and always has been and always will be.


You’re not a woman, are you?


You guys seem to forget that it’s a line-drawing balancing act and that all “sincerely held religious beliefs” are not treated the same. Animal sacrifices are sincerely held religious beliefs that are given nothing but the back of the hand by courts. And I don’t think refusing to sell groceries to a gay couple would get you very far with any court, no matter what your religion said about homosexuality.