I fully expect Trump to file another attack on it immediately, re-fusing the time bomb, because he is too stupid to recognize the favor he has received.
I donât know if he will. NPR contributors think he wonât. After all, when his Muslim Ban was shot down twice, he refiled before it got to the Supreme Court and eventually got it passed. He could have done the same was for ending DACA.
I think this is one like ending the ACA. Better to have it as a campaign issue, then actually doing something about it.
Hey, speaking of the SCOTUS, are we not expecting a decision on YAChallenge to the ACA on constitutional grounds, or was that one punted?
magnet
4732
Arguments this fall, decision next year.
Schedule your Alexa reminders accordingly.
Yeah, Trump Taxes and an Abortion case are still due this sessionâŚ
I thought SCOTUS was posting more rulings this morning, but the only one Iâve seen is about asylum seekers lacking access to federal courts. Did they not drop anything else?
Nope. Monday and Tuesday now.
Justice John Roberts joins with the liberal judges in rejecting the LA abortion law that made abortion doctors have admitting prevelidges in hospitals. That story doesnât make it crystal clear that he was the only conservative to join the liberals, but it implies it. So those predicting Gorsuch and Cavanaugh wouldnât go in this direction were wrong I guess.
Oddly, I saw one accounting that says 4-1-4, which doesnât make much sense to me (unless somebody recused?)
Kyrios
4740
Roberts was the 1, concurring in the judgment but not the opinion. Roughly, Breyer delivered an in-depth opinion, with which the other three liberal justices concurred, as to why the regulations were unconstitutional. Roberts delivered an opinion that basically said âthe Louisiana act is just as bad as the Texas act that we rejected before, so under stare decisis we should reject the Louisiana actâ, which resulted in the judgement against the Louisiana law. Then the other four conservative judges all dissented, with three of them writing dissents, and which I will be waiting for legal analysts to tell me if thereâs anything relevant in because (among other reasons) I hope to go through the remainder of my life without reading another single item of Alito legal prose.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-wont-hear-challenge-to-new-federal-death-penalty-procedure/2020/06/29/896c6ac6-ba00-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6_story.html
This makes us 1-2 for the day. Though the CFPB loss seems understandable.
There is not anything relevant in the dissents, FYI.
magnet
4743
Does this mean that the Kagan gambit worked??
(Kagan sided with the conservatives in Ramos, and I recall speculation at the time that her argument was partly aimed at reminding Roberts of the importance of stare decisis.)
My question regarding the dissents is whether they argue against RvWâs finding of a Constitutional Right to Privacy, which is arguably more important here in the 21st century.
Looking for a bellwether in case something happens to RBG, or McConnell holds the senate.
Susan Collins is very, very disappointed with olâ Kav.
Thomas does. The rest do not. But that doesnât mean they agree with Roe.
I wouldnât expect the justices to strike down a constitutional right to privacy, as no one seems to take aim at Griswold v. Connecticut.
I canât say I am familiar with the Death Penalty case. What was the point?
Oh, and regarding precedent: that is basically the only straw Roberts can hold on to in trying to defend this current court, so he HAS to defend precedent whenever possible.
magnet
4749
In 1972, the SCOTUS ruled in Apodaca v Oregon that states did not have to require a unanimous verdict.
Louisiana had a similar law, which was enacted by an openly racist legislature. They said they wanted to make sure black defendants would be convicted by a nearly all-white jury.
The Louisiana law was found to be unconstitutional this year (it had already been replaced, but Ramos had been convicted under the old law).
Kagan basically said the law was not unconstitutional, but only because of the Apodaca precedent.
I mean, no he doesnât. He could side with the conservatives any time he wants and start to dismantle Roe.
He probably wouldnât completely throw Roe out the window like Thomas wants, but the dominant anti-abortion strategy is not about throwing Roe out the window. As in this case, their strategy is to slowly chip away at Roe until we hardly remember what it was for. They donât care if abortion is legal in theory, provided it is impossible in practice.
