SCOTUS Megathread: Opinions in Rimini St., Loos, 4th Estate released Monday 3/4

[junior chįmp]

BUMP

SCOTUS has the day off today due to Memorial Day. Tommorow they release a bunch of opinions including possibly maybe the last case left over from October: Gil v. Whitford

Hopefully gerrymandering is struck down.

FantasySCOTUS still has it predicted as being ruled un constitutional:

https://fantasyscotus.lexpredict.com/case-prediction/gill-v-whitford/

[Sestak]

First of all, I'm not sure it's been confirmed that there are opinions tomorrow. But there almost certainly will be.

Now it's worth noting, Whitford may be coming, but it also may be combined with Benisek v. Lamone, which was argued in April, which could delay it a bit.

Again, I really don't know what they'll do here. Gerrymandering clearly makes a mockery of what the House and other representative assemblies are supposed to be, but the efficiency gap metric put forth by the plaintiffs in Whitford is absolute garbage.

[Virginiá]

BUMP

SCOTUS has the day off today due to Memorial Day. Tommorow they release a bunch of opinions including possibly maybe the last case left over from October: Gil v. Whitford

Hopefully gerrymandering is struck down.

FantasySCOTUS still has it predicted as being ruled un constitutional:

https://fantasyscotus.lexpredict.com/case-prediction/gill-v-whitford/

It seemed like there were the votes to take on partisan gerrymandering, but they couldn't agree on how to go about it. The question is then whether they want to keep hearing more cases or just put together something that they can add on to as the years go by, like racial gerrymandering.

If they punt this again, then I really hope Kennedy stays on so they can hear more cases this fall or perhaps next year, to find some workable standard that they agree with. If they don't, they are consigning America to a level of political corruption even worse than the 2010s, all because they couldn't agree on some perfect test.

[junior chįmp]

First of all, I'm not sure it's been confirmed that there are opinions tomorrow. But there almost certainly will be.

Actually....there really are opinions being released tomorrow....check the SCOTUSBlog calendar:

http://www.scotusblog.com/events/

[junior chįmp]

BUMP

SCOTUS has the day off today due to Memorial Day. Tommorow they release a bunch of opinions including possibly maybe the last case left over from October: Gil v. Whitford

Hopefully gerrymandering is struck down.

FantasySCOTUS still has it predicted as being ruled un constitutional:

https://fantasyscotus.lexpredict.com/case-prediction/gill-v-whitford/

It seemed like there were the votes to take on partisan gerrymandering, but they couldn't agree on how to go about it. The question is then whether they want to keep hearing more cases or just put together something that they can add on to as the years go by, like racial gerrymandering.

If they punt this again, then I really hope Kennedy stays on so they can hear more cases this fall or perhaps next year, to find some workable standard that they agree with. If they don't, they are consigning America to a level of political corruption even worse than the 2010s, all because they couldn't agree on some perfect test.

The betting markets have it as 50/50 that Kennedy retires in 2018. Considering he thinks his Magnum Opus is his Citizens United decision....it's very likely he could step down the preserve that decision alone. Then again....Kennedy is an attention whore who clips fawning newspaper coverage of himself and saves them in a big book.

[libertpaulian]

BUMP

SCOTUS has the day off today due to Memorial Day. Tommorow they release a bunch of opinions including possibly maybe the last case left over from October: Gil v. Whitford

Hopefully gerrymandering is struck down.

FantasySCOTUS still has it predicted as being ruled un constitutional:

https://fantasyscotus.lexpredict.com/case-prediction/gill-v-whitford/

It seemed like there were the votes to take on partisan gerrymandering, but they couldn't agree on how to go about it. The question is then whether they want to keep hearing more cases or just put together something that they can add on to as the years go by, like racial gerrymandering.

If they punt this again, then I really hope Kennedy stays on so they can hear more cases this fall or perhaps next year, to find some workable standard that they agree with. If they don't, they are consigning America to a level of political corruption even worse than the 2010s, all because they couldn't agree on some perfect test.

The betting markets have it as 50/50 that Kennedy retires in 2018. Considering he thinks his Magnum Opus is his Citizens United decision....it's very likely he could step down the preserve that decision alone. Then again....Kennedy is an attention whore who clips fawning newspaper coverage of himself and saves them in a big book.

Um, if I authored or joined some of the most controversial opinions in the nation's history, I'd probably think highly of myself too.

[junior chįmp]

BUMP

SCOTUS has the day off today due to Memorial Day. Tommorow they release a bunch of opinions including possibly maybe the last case left over from October: Gil v. Whitford

Hopefully gerrymandering is struck down.

FantasySCOTUS still has it predicted as being ruled un constitutional:

https://fantasyscotus.lexpredict.com/case-prediction/gill-v-whitford/

It seemed like there were the votes to take on partisan gerrymandering, but they couldn't agree on how to go about it. The question is then whether they want to keep hearing more cases or just put together something that they can add on to as the years go by, like racial gerrymandering.

If they punt this again, then I really hope Kennedy stays on so they can hear more cases this fall or perhaps next year, to find some workable standard that they agree with. If they don't, they are consigning America to a level of political corruption even worse than the 2010s, all because they couldn't agree on some perfect test.

The betting markets have it as 50/50 that Kennedy retires in 2018. Considering he thinks his Magnum Opus is his Citizens United decision....it's very likely he could step down the preserve that decision alone. Then again....Kennedy is an attention whore who clips fawning newspaper coverage of himself and saves them in a big book.

Um, if I authored or joined some of the most controversial opinions in the nation's history, I'd probably think highly of myself too.

Idk how much Kennedy cares about his legacy but if he leaves under Trump, almost all of his work in abortion,gay rights, affirmitive action, the death penalty, etc could be undone while Citizens United stays on the books.

On the flipside....he could leave or die under a Dem president and have Citizens United overturned while all of his other work in the aforementioned areas is saved.

That's up to him. My guess is he could care less about those issues but who knows

[Sestak]

The Court continues to put off the most controversial ones: No Masterpiece, Whitford, or Carpenter. We did get two decisions and one case dismissed as improvidently granted. More details to be posted soon.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The court also denied certorari to a case regarding a new restriction on medication abortions in Arkansas. The court was asked to declare a preliminary injunction against the law while the lawsuit itself proceeds in lower courts. The denial was given without explanation and allows the law to go into effect, at least for now.

[KingSweden]

The court also denied certorari to a case regarding a new restriction on medication abortions in Arkansas. The court was asked to declare a preliminary injunction against the law while the lawsuit itself proceeds in lower courts. The denial was given without explanation and allows the law to go into effect, at least for now.

No dissents?

[junior chįmp]

The court also denied certorari to a case regarding a new restriction on medication abortions in Arkansas. The court was asked to declare a preliminary injunction against the law while the lawsuit itself proceeds in lower courts. The denial was given without explanation and allows the law to go into effect, at least for now.

Sounds like Kennedys getting ready to bail

[Gass3268]

The court also denied certorari to a case regarding a new restriction on medication abortions in Arkansas. The court was asked to declare a preliminary injunction against the law while the lawsuit itself proceeds in lower courts. The denial was given without explanation and allows the law to go into effect, at least for now.

No dissents?

It means that there wasn't 4 Justices that wanted to hear this case at this time. They upheld district court ruling that ordered the lower court to gather information on what effect this would have on women seeking abortions in Arkansas. Essentially the Court, including one of the four liberals, want more information on the issue.

[Virginiá]

The court also denied certorari to a case regarding a new restriction on medication abortions in Arkansas. The court was asked to declare a preliminary injunction against the law while the lawsuit itself proceeds in lower courts. The denial was given without explanation and allows the law to go into effect, at least for now.

Sounds like Kennedys getting ready to bail

If what I read was correct, it sounds like this law was the same as what was covered in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. It required the doctor to have a contract with another doctor who had hospital admitting privilege, a restriction that makes absolutely no sense for this and is very blatantly designed to regulate abortion out of existence. So it's possible they felt there was nothing new to address, and it would eventually get struck down once the lower courts do their thing.

Although, who knows what Kennedy is doing. He certainly is at a ripe age for retirement.

[KingSweden]

The court also denied certorari to a case regarding a new restriction on medication abortions in Arkansas. The court was asked to declare a preliminary injunction against the law while the lawsuit itself proceeds in lower courts. The denial was given without explanation and allows the law to go into effect, at least for now.

No dissents?

It means that there wasn't 4 Justices that wanted to hear this case at this time. They upheld district court ruling that ordered the lower court to gather information on what effect this would have on women seeking abortions in Arkansas. Essentially the Court, including one of the four liberals, want more information on the issue.

Ah ok. Then this isn’t that big of a deal beyond declining to stay

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The court also denied certorari to a case regarding a new restriction on medication abortions in Arkansas. The court was asked to declare a preliminary injunction against the law while the lawsuit itself proceeds in lower courts. The denial was given without explanation and allows the law to go into effect, at least for now.

Sounds like Kennedys getting ready to bail

If what I read was correct, it sounds like this law was the same as what was covered in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. It required the doctor to have a contract with another doctor who had hospital admitting privilege, a restriction that makes absolutely no sense for this and is very blatantly designed to regulate abortion out of existence. So it's possible they felt there was nothing new to address, and it would eventually get struck down once the lower courts do their thing.

Although, who knows what Kennedy is doing. He certainly is at a ripe age for retirement.

The law is slightly different than the Texas law from a few years back. The Texas law required that the abortion doctor themselves have admitting privileges at a hospital, while the Arkansas law merely requires a contract with some other doctor with such privileges and does not require the abortion doctor themselves to have such privileges.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

MSN

Do you smell that, folks?

That's the smell of freedom and due process.

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

MSN

Do you smell that, folks?

That's the smell of freedom and due process.

When will the far-left Supreme Court stop stripping away the rights of our brave police? If that car got searched, it's because it was asking for it. It probably had the tarp hiked up above its midsection, just begging for cops to come and thrust themselves into it!

#BlueLivesMatter

[junior chįmp]

https://www.twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1003642960754294786

[Torie]

Following that tweet link, somebody commented that Roberts has both of the gerrymandering cases.

I wish I were on the court. Rather than all of this mathematical stuff, that judges hate, merely hold that when one party controls the process, to the extent they depart from appropriate redistricting criteria, like dividing governmental jurisdictions between CD's more than is necessary, or districts that are less compact than they could be, the burden of proof is on the map makers to prove it was not done for partisan reasons. The best way to prove that would be to have adopted neutral redistricting criteria in advance, that were designed to make it next to impossible to draw lines for partisan reasons.

Oh, and SCOTUS should dump the idea that incumbent protection is a legitimate criterion in drawing lines, particularly if to so protect incumbents tends to lock into place lines that are anything but a reasonable way to draw lines. Unfortunately, that lacunae has in fact been adopted by SCOTUS as one prong to fall back on.

[mencken]

Following that tweet link, somebody commented that Roberts has both of the gerrymandering cases.

I wish I were on the court. Rather than all of this mathematical stuff, that judges hate, and merely hold that when one party controls the process, to the extent they depart from appropriate redistricting criteria, like dividing governmental jurisdictions between CD's more than is necessary, or districts that are less compact than they could be, the burden of proof is on the map makers to prove it was not done for partisan reasons. The best way to prove that would be to have adopted neutral redistricting criteria in advance, that was designed to make it next to impossible to draw lines for partisan reasons.

I like the idea of this proposal, but I do not think that the Supreme Court should pretend that that is what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they ratified it. Nobody thought Elbridge Gerry was violating the Constitution in the 18-aughts.

[libertpaulian]

Just got a USA Today notification on my phone...SCOTUS rules 5-4 that Ohio did not violate federal election laws by purging inactive voters.

[Sestak]

Just got a USA Today notification on my phone...SCOTUS rules 5-4 that Ohio did not violate federal election laws by purging inactive voters.

Yeah. Grrrr.


Understandable, though, because the challenge was only based on federal law and not constitutional voting rights.

[Gass3268]

The Court is handing down more decisions today.

[KingSweden]

Nothing exciting today.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The court struck down a Minnesota law preventing political clothing at polling places, saying the law was too vague. The vote was 7-2 with Sotomayor and Breyer dissenting.

There was also another boring 9-0 ruling on a foreign law application case.