How would you have ruled in the preceding case?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Typically this thread has dealt with settled cases, and we have other threads dealing with this particular unsettled case. Still, I'll give it a stab.

Given that the initiative process can pass laws that the normal government would care to not defend or to implement, it would seem prudent that there be a mechanism to compel the government to do that which it would rather not do.  However, California has no such mechanism, therefore the plaintiffs did not have standing to appeal the decision of the district court.  The circuit court ruling is therefore voided and the Ninth Circuit is ordered to ordered to lift its stay due to the failure of any party with standing to file an appeal in the relevant period of time.

Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

[bedstuy]

For Costco, probably. Mostly because the Ninth Circuit opinion puts US manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage and hurts US consumers.   

Brown v. Plata.

[CatoMinor]

Plata.

High Tech Gays vs D.I.S.C.O

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Would have disagreed with some of the reasoning, but would have agreed with the ruling.  Regardless of whether homosexuality is a changeable behavior as noted in the ruling or not, it is a behavior that some people seek to keep secret and thus can potentially make one more of a security risk through fears of either oneself or one's friends being outed, so there was a rational basis for the higher scrutiny.

Canada v. Schmidt

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Probably with the majority; I don't think double jeopardy would have applied to being tried in different countries (in this case, being tried for a crime in both Canada and the United States.)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

[Antonio the Sixth]

With the majority, though I would make the ruling a bit narrower (basing it exclusively on viewpoint discrimination rather than on such a bold affirmation of free speech rights in schools).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Majority

Stanford v. Kentucky

[Dr. Cynic]

Dissent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_v._Kelly

[Kaine for Senate '18]

With the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._White

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The case involved the admissibility of a recorded conversation when the party who had given consent to the recording was not available at trial.

Concur in the decision, but make clear in my concurrence that in such a case, the defendant should be given the broadest opportunity to have the evidence excluded on the grounds of entrapment.  By which I mean that if the missing witness undertook to question or otherwise elicit incriminating evidence, it should be thrown out.  That appears to have not been raised at trial tho, so concur in the decision as to the basic admissibility of such evidence.

Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords

[NewYorkExpress]

With the majority.
Terminiello v.Chicago

[politicallefty]

I strongly agree with the Court's majority opinion. I take a particularly dim view of anything that attempts to attack the freedom of speech.

Reitman v. Mulkey

[H. Ross Peron]

Majority

Kelo v. City of New London

[Del Tachi]

Join the Court's majority opinion; promoting economic development is a legitimate interest of the government and is permissible grounds for the enactment of the taking clause. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

[politicallefty]

I think the (7-2) majority was probably right with respect to the Equal Protection Clause violation, but I vehemently disagree with the Court's stopping of the recount. However, I should say that I would have denied cert were I on the Court. I may have went so far as to vote to dismiss as improvidently granted.

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

[NewYorkExpress]

With the dissent,  although in many places we are exposed to much worse than George Carlin...

Young v Facebook

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Concur with the decision, though the reasoning behind her ban is vague.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

[Enderman]

I'd vote in favor....



Georgia v South Carolina

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Most likely with the majority.

Ricci v. DeSteFano

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With the majority.  I have a low opinion of Title VII in the first place, tho it was needed at the time it became law.  Limiting the scope of it to prevent preemptive reverse discrimination when there was no evidence of discrimination is appropriate.

United Steelworkers v. Weber

[Beet]

With the dissent, it's too close to a quota system, and strictly race based affirmative action should be thrown out. Not sure how I would have felt in 1979 however.

American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant

[NewYorkExpress]

With the dissent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Philadelphia_v._New_Jersey

[Kaine for Senate '18]

With the majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlesinger_v._Ballard

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

With the majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berger_v._New_York

[RedSLC]

With the majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims