SCOTUS Term 25-26
- Thread starter Aardvark86
- Start date
Nah, just political hacks.
It's only reasonable when viewed in a vacuum while operating under the erroneous assumption that the drafters(and states that approved it's adoption) of the 14th amendment made a mistake by not specifically stating that it's intentions are to strictly protect the citizenship of freed black slaves. Which of course is ridiculous and backed up by the records of congress during it's debate on the subject.
Clarence Thomas made it abundantly clear he's 80, and doesn't care much for trans citizens. It isn't about the specific ruling, it's the language that he used. I expect GuRLz SpORtz was never going to be the end of the the far right's agenda when it comes to trans citizens.
So I know we're now in the relatively quiet time of the year where everyone just whines about this or that (at least until football season starts), but one interesting little update. Yesterday the court issued an order list, mostly denying cert in a handful of cases, but granting it in one -- Jouppi v Alaska. Jouppi's a funny little case. Basically, a bush pilot was getting ready to fly a lady with a six pack of brewskis (for her husband) into an Alaskan village where alcohol is prohibited. So he was busted at the airport, was convicted and sentenced to 3 days and a $1500 fine. That's bad enough, but then the state seized his $95,000 plane. 14 years later, Jouppi is at Scotus challenging that seizure as a violation of the 8th amendment's excessive fines clause.
BTW, for those who like to nerd out, one other case from my drug pricing world that I'm watching closely is PhRMA v WV. The 4th circuit panel held that a state law restricting drug manufacturers' ability to put conditions on distribution of products under the federal 340B drug pricing program, was preempted by the federal 340B law. En banc review by the full fourth circuit has been granted and there are some other cases percolating out there on the same issue (including an over the top one in ND). What makes this a really interesting case (and potentially really interesting to scotus) is that the lower court's preemption analysis featured a really interesting discussion to the effect that preemption should be more liberally granted in cases where the federal (preempting) law is based on the spending clause, as state laws can "upset the bargain" reflected in a spending clause program where they impose additional limits, etc. Recall that the Landor case this past year (the Rastafarian prisoner haircut case) was premised on spending clause distinctions.
BTW, for those who like to nerd out, one other case from my drug pricing world that I'm watching closely is PhRMA v WV. The 4th circuit panel held that a state law restricting drug manufacturers' ability to put conditions on distribution of products under the federal 340B drug pricing program, was preempted by the federal 340B law. En banc review by the full fourth circuit has been granted and there are some other cases percolating out there on the same issue (including an over the top one in ND). What makes this a really interesting case (and potentially really interesting to scotus) is that the lower court's preemption analysis featured a really interesting discussion to the effect that preemption should be more liberally granted in cases where the federal (preempting) law is based on the spending clause, as state laws can "upset the bargain" reflected in a spending clause program where they impose additional limits, etc. Recall that the Landor case this past year (the Rastafarian prisoner haircut case) was premised on spending clause distinctions.
I saw that the Jouppi case was granted cert. SCOTUS likely granted cert in light of Timbs v Indiana, which was decided 9-0. I'd be surprised if this isn't a slam dunk and repudiation on lower courts for not applying Timbs.
I'm sure there are those who will kvetch about the substance of her comments, but I have to say, I sort of love how in interviews and speeches, Kagan seems to talk like a normal person ("like...", "vibes") and has a nicely understated fun sense of humor
Setting aside politics, she’s also one of the two best writers on the Court. She doesn’t use much jargon in her opinions and they are almost conversational. Easy to read.
Elected officials at all levels have no problem defying the Constitution and subsequent SCOTUS rulings. Obama ignored a Federal court order related to Deepwater Horizon spill. The Virginia legislature and governor have gone crazy creating new gun bans. Contracts for Flock and Axon cameras are still proliferating. Heck, Trump is waging war without Congressional approval.
The new tariffs made headlines but most won't go into effect until months down the road. Hopefully the moment they go into effect a Federal judge will stop them. That's a really bad thing about federal court rules - there has to be harm in most cases before a suit can move forward. There are very very instances where constitutional challenges can be brought to trial without tangible harm to the plaintiff.
Last edited:
Absolutely. I always love it when you can tell that there’s a distinct human being on the other side of the pen.
LOL, they did, and he doesn't give AF. He's going to ignore them repeatedly. They told him not to do something, so he told his sycophants to find a work around. Imagine the indication you'd be choking on if Biden went and found a way to relieve a bunch of student debt after being told not to.
Just imagine what he's going to do IF they tell him he cannot tell the USPS to stop delivering mail in ballots in blue parts of PA, GA, MI...
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated
SUMMER UPDATE: Will Heldt
-
02
Rivals
Who has the edge? Clemson, Georgia Tech and South Carolina vie for elite 2028 OL
-
03
Tiger Illustrated
Our latest on Clemson's first junior offer
-
04
Tiger Illustrated
MONDAY INSIDER
-
05
Tiger Illustrated
Our first question to Dabo Swinney on day one of August camp