Yeah but those were the only two options on the dockett, right? Either status quo or full facism, probably best to have the former
It is when youâre playing defense with three players against six players.
2 Likes
You would prefer a majority in the opposite direction?
Of course this is a win.
1 Like
If this is anything like past decisions (like when Roberts essentially wrote in his opinion exactly how to get the Court to rule in favor of banning abortion) all it does is signal âHey, we canât overturn this case on these grounds, but if you bring it back to us with X, Y, and Z changes weâll rule the way you want us toâ.
So in a way yes, itâd be better if they just ripped the band-aid off now and maybe set things up for an easy fix as opposed to kicking the can and waiting for a stronger case to make their move.
There are no easy fixes to anything. So this is far better than the alternative which would basically mean no more D presidents - probably ever.
1 Like
Thatâs not how precedent works. And it seems like ftmp the non-Alito/Thomas conservatives are loathe to reverse precedent.
I admittedly havenât looked into the ISL case at all so my âeasy fixâ was referring to a situation like Roe where the Court signaled they would overturn at the first opportunity but could have been thwarted by Congress passing a law.
Maybe a lawbro can confirm, but it doesnât looks like the dissenters did precisely this.
As you may recall, this is the case that the NC SC decided and then after the elections the court composition changed from conservative minority to conservative majority, so they decided to re-hear the case and they changed the original verdict.
It looks like the dissenters (at least 2/3) basically said, âsince the court changed the verdict, this appeal now becomes mootâ, which I suppose isnât the worst argument in the world.
However, it looks like the main benefit of the first NC supreme court issuing itâs ruling is that GOP canât use this as even a stalling tactic since it has now been ruled upon.
Iâm not saying they arenât good with Calvinball. They definitely are, but they found an easy non-Calvinball out this time.
Thatâs mostly not what I was looking for. I think pretty much all the justices (conservative and liberal) have a desired outcome and then they just make up some constitution-based justification for whatever it is that they want. So I have no doubt that Gorsuch has some legal reasoning for doing what he does. But thatâs putting the cart before the horse.
If we accept that the justices look at the result first and come up with the justification after (which they shouldnât do, but mostly always actually do, imo), then we still need to figure out why Gorsuch is motivated to go with that particular interpretation of the constitution. He very easily could have picked another one (see Thomas and Alito).
The article does allude that he is from the West and has had to rule in cases involving Native American rights a lot. So maybe seeing them up close had an impact on him. However, Iâm not sure I believe that. Plenty of conservative justices see all sorts of injustices and atrocities perpetrated against oppressed groups and they donât care one bit. They just provide the assist.
So, Iâm still at a loss for why Gorsuch is the way he is. Itâs probably an unanswerable question. Maybe only he, his wife, and some close family/friends truly know the why. Or maybe he is really the only one that knows.
Not regarding the Indian stuff, but Gorsuch has a strong background in Catholic-inspired legal philosophy, including studying under one of the well know scholars in this very niche area that isnât taken very seriously these days (it was bigger 200 years ago). He wrote a philosophy book about the sanctity of life and legal implications (which is basically just religion gussied up a bit). Iâd read his book if I had any reason other than morbid curiosity.
All three dissenters said that the case was moot and SCOTUS should not have granted certiorari. Thomasâs dissent also rejected the majorityâs conclusions on ISL - not endorsing ISL per se, from what I can tell from the impenetrable prose, but rejecting the majorityâs reasoning. That part of Thomasâs dissent was joined by Gorsuch, but not Alito, so it seems like Alito is on board with the substance of the decision.
Gorsuch might have a secret kid with a native American woman.
While improbable, this is the most plausible explanation that Iâve heard so far.
This will not matter at all, but it seems like the original controversy underlying the 303 Creative case might have been completely made up?
(This is the case where a Colorado website designer wants the religious freedom to reject making websites for same sex marriages.)
https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1674411839604633600
(I didnât read the link, but Leah Litman is the law professor Strict Scrutiny host and Iâm happy to trust her take on this.)
Sounds like theyâre turning the equal protection clause on its head yet again today to nuke affirmative action. I would guess they get rid of student loan forgiveness tomorrow because I really doubt they want to come back to work on Monday next week.
Affirmative action in college admissions is donezo.
So what will be the new excuse mediocre white kids use for why they didnât get into the school they wanted?
2 Likes
Thomas, the second Black justice, countered that he felt affirmative action made his diploma from Yale Law practically worthless; he has been a fierce opponent of racial preferences in his three decades on the court. âRacial paternalism ⌠can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination,â he has written.
YOU LITERALLY WOULD NOT BE WHERE YOU ARE WITHOUT THAT âPRACTICALLY WORTHLESSâ YALE LAW DEGREE YOU FUCKING IDIOT
12 Likes
Looking for some positivity, everything Iâve seen so far from Jackson indicates that she was an excellent nomination to the court.
1 Like
what will be the new excuse when the over achieving Asian kids donât get all the spots?
1 Like