actually not bad.
It’s a weird 6-3 split, but my going theory is that the three Trump appointees are young enough to actually understand computers and technology so they can actually grasp the ramifications of this decision.
Another note is that Breyer has never assigned the majority position away…until now. Interesting that he gave it to Barrett.
His legacy is Sci-Hub the greatest fuck you to a corrupt academic publication system ever.
In 20 years we will look back at the 50 years of paywalled academic research as the epitome of the failings of capitalism.
It’s worth checking out the recent episode of On the Media that covered how the pandemic may be the nail in the coffin of siloed medical research data.
Its pretty classic rent seeking.
narrator: it wasn’t.
medical research is going to become overwhelmingly technological, and it is going to be a very long fight to get out of current patent hell and secret labs. people don’t realize some engineering phd dissertations are under restricted access because they contain info owned by corporations. think about that for a second.
I finally broke down and am paying $49 per month for access via Deep Dyve. It’s not perfect but it’s way cheaper than SciFinder etc.
Obamacare lives to fight another day
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1405526630458556428
like 100% getting overturned in 2 years or whatever tho
I started reading Thomas’ concurrence and was instantly on rage tilt.
What the hell?
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, dissenting.
Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two. In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue.
LOL Breyer still thinks the court isnt partisan, dude is just a stone cold dunce
Once the Reps take back the house and voter suppression is locked in shit is going to get CRAZY.
he’s got the same type of brainworms that infected manchin and trump, all of them formed a worldview in like 1985 and it’s been frozen in their heads since then and they have been 100% unable to ingest any new information at all.
yeah you have to figure that the deplorables on SCOTUS feel like they have their shit locked down for a good while now with a 6-3 edge, they’re not going to rock the boat and risk a huge electoral backlash just yet. they’re going to bide their time until the legislative branch can cement their shit permanently. Kav and Gorsuch don’t want to see four or six new justices muscling in on their space in the SCOTUS parking lot or taking up the stairmaster in the SCOTUS gym or whatever. Gotta make sure nobody can expand that court.
Lol calling bigotry “religious freedom.” You’re allowed to think whatever you want about the invisible man in the sky but it is in no way “religious freedom” to discriminate against gay people, just patently fucking absurd.
Also shout out to King Douche Lawbro Neal Katyal for successfully defending Nestles ability to use slave labor without consequence.
I get extreme anxiety whenever this thread is bumped with multiple new posts.
This is me every time.
Wow, you’re not kidding. All it takes is 8 words and you know it’s going to be a flaming pile of trash.
There is much to commend JUSTICE ALITO’s account
lawbros, what’s the difference between concurring and joining the dissetn?
I get that our system with the electoral college sucks, but I dont equate winning by nearly the population of New York City to be squeaking out a win
Not a law bro, but dissenting means that you disagree with the outcome (which party wins or loses), while concurring means you agree with the outcome, but not necessarily the reasoning. It could also mean that you agree entirely with the reasoning of the majority, but there are other things you wish they had said. For example, a majority opinion might say “We reverse the lower court’s ruling because the plaintiffs do not have standing. Because they don’t have standing, we don’t even have to rule on the substance of their arguments.” A concurring opinion might agree with that judgment, but then extend it by saying, “and even if they did have standing, I’d rule against the plaintiffs on the substantive aspects of the case.” Or someone like Scalia might need to write a concurring opinion because he agrees with the outcome, but thinks the majority opinion wasn’t cruel enough to gay people.