Senate The Supreme Court

Sad thing: this is apparently still news to a lot of Democrats.

 

SCOTUS can step on that as easily as they stepped on bond hearings for immigrant detainees.

In reality, they can do whatever the hell they want, and that scares me. The only solution is electing more people who think like we do, and getting them to pass laws. Republicans understand this (especially at the state levels). Democrats are slow to the game and well-behind the eight-ball here. They need to catch up, and soon.

@GrandAdmiralJello --I love your analysis. I read the decision last night on supremecourt.gov, and you distilled the issues beautifully. Justice Alito's reasoning on how and why the Ninth Circuit misapplied the concept of Constitutional avoidance was eloquent and well-reasoned. In a way, he provided the Ninth Circuit with the tools they need to build a case that *will* pass Constitutional muster. It'll be interesting to see what the Ninth Circuit does with it, and how the high Court addresses the question in the future.

 

Interesting article on Chief Justice John Roberts and the First Amendment.

If I were a betting man, I would say that the Court is likely to uphold the right of the baker to discriminate against homosexuals as long as the basis for doing so is a "sincerely held religious belief." That belief, of course, will in practice only apply to Christians discriminating against non-Christians, and will further erode the wall separating church and state in the US. Roberts has surprised me before, though, so I'll try to keep an open mind.

 

No article needed to be written to know this. We've known this since a) the case was taken and b) people decided SCOTUS wasn't enough of a reason on the left to vote.

Similarly, public unions are going to die swift, horrible deaths...

And possibly abortion rights, depending on outcomes of the restrictive new laws out of the South...

 

Agree on unions, disagree on abortion. The Court has already turned down challenges to strict abortion laws over the past year, and until the public consciousness shifts against it in a major way, isn’t likely to overturn Roe.

Unions, however, are gone and will need to reinvent themselves. It’s time for them to adopt new strategies and tactics. What those are I can’t really say, but the old way of doing business for unions is coming to an end this June.

 

There's no way forward for labor unions in America. American workers have few rights and will end up with even less rights.

 

You've got to let me know, will you stay or will you go?.

I’m on the fence. If he can shape the gerrymandering decision, I’m betting he goes. If not, I think he’ll stay. He wants a legacy, and if he can’t wrap it up this term, I give him one more year on the Court.

 

It's SCOTUS season. Today they struck down a 1992 law, and now allow states to legalize sports betting if they wish.

A much bigger decision looming could effectively enforce "right to work" nationwide, and take away significant funding from labor unions.

 

The Court also ruled that a lawyer may not concede a client's guilt if a client proclaims his innocence.

 

"Could," lol.

 

There are already reports in NJ about how this will be a boon to the state's economy. Of course, they also said the same thing when the state lottery and casino gambling in Atlantic City were brought in. Didn't work out that way.

 

That's been my experience across the board when it comes to things like this. The argument for a casino in our location was that it would give so much more money to the area schools. Our schools are currently running a four day week because they can't afford to keep the buildings open a fifth day. Casino parking garage is packed every single day. I wonder what happened.

 

The Supreme Court has in a 5-4 decision legalized business agreements where the business requires their workers (and others) to sign agreements that prevent any future class-action lawsuits.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-top-court-backs-companies-over-worker-class-141107855--finance.html

 

Question:

When did the whole 'liberal' 'conservative' attributes become a thing for US Supreme Judges?

 

Waiting for the gerrymandering cases, myself.

 

Who aren't even remotely left leaning.

Also, a better article on what Ghost is talking about;

https://www.economist.com/democracy...es-with-companies-over-arbitration-agreements

Key points:

"
The fundamental question, Justice Gorsuch wrote, is whether workers should “always be permitted to bring their claims in class or collective actions, no matter what they agreed with their employers”. That is a rather loaded framing, Justice Ginsburg argued in her fervent dissent. The majority’s reasoning is “egregiously wrong”, she wrote. Joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Ginsburg contended that a worker’s signature on a forced arbitration agreement should not be taken as a sign she enthusiastically forfeits the right to sue in concert with co-workers. Characterising the contractual relationship this way is to ignore the “extreme imbalance” between bosses and employees the NLRA was designed to ameliorate. Two of the companies that were party to Epic Systems had simply emailed the agreements to employees—telling them they’d be “deemed” to have accepted the terms if they kept showing up for work.

Workers, Justice Ginsburg wrote, “must have the capacity to act collectively in order to match their employers’ clout” in dictating wages and work conditions. But under the Epic Systems decision, laws aiming at the “wellbeing of vulnerable workers” will be “underenforce[d]”. With no threat of class-action lawsuits, companies could steal small bits of wages from many workers with near impunity, as the benefits of “skirting legal obligations” would outweigh the costs and individual workers would fear retaliation for striking out on their own."

But, still a great country. Worth saving. Worth fighting to protect and restore.

 

Yeah? What's the alternative, kill everybody? We didn't even do that for Germany or Japan.

 

yeah if only there was some sort of point in American history which gets often talked about in near-masturbatory tones, where people did something about "oppressive, tyrannical government".

Sadly, alas, nothing.

 

Overthrowing the system and putting a new one in place still counts as "fixing" the country and not "destroying" it.

 

It may come to that.

This will be the most lasting and damaging part of Trump's legacy. No matter if there's a backlash at the polls, his judges will still be able to block a progressive agenda.

Food for thought.

 

Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in favor of Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

I’d like to see service refused to a Christian now and how they’d rule.

 

Next up: refusing to sell houses to gay couples.

 

What's interesting to me is Kagan and Breyer joined in the majority, but wrote a concurrence basically limiting the scope of the judgment because the original judgment by the state actor was incorrect in its own application (limited time reading).

And Thomas was off being Thomas...

 

The opinion is a mess. It elaborates no useful standards for any state regulator or business hoping to know what to do next other than maybe providing somewhat vague hope and comfort for those with "sincere religious beliefs" and/or a desire to discriminate. It's great news for them, because no one knows how to measure the sincerity of a religious belief, and the Supreme Court provides no guidance. Maybe it's a given that we know it when we see it. Religious belief is even more like pornography than we already knew it to be!