SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term

[jamestroll]

We have Moore. It's by the Chief. Appears to be the a full opinion. Dissent by Thomas, joined Gorsuch and Alito.

Thank goodness.

And f***  you alito and thomas. The latter being the worst POS in US History.

[politicallefty]

We have Moore. It's by the Chief. Appears to be the a full opinion. Dissent by Thomas, joined Gorsuch and Alito.

Thank goodness.

And f***  you alito and thomas. The latter being the worst POS in US History.

Alito actually only joined on the mootness aspect of the Thomas dissent (Part I). Part II of the Thomas dissent went onto the merits, where he only held onto Gorsuch. Alito didn't join that part.

[Vosem]

Peak "SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be the Court throwing out the student loan case on standing grounds, but Kavanaugh writing a concurrence in which he explains exactly how the case could've been brought before the Court correctly, and then that case being brought next summer.

Peak "MOGOP is a bunch of dumbasses" would be a requirement that MOHELA bring the case rather than the state of Missouri, leading to the Missouri GOP trying to appoint loyalists to random MOHELA positions and then failing because this is exactly the sort of inside baseball they're still comically bad at.

In oral arguments, SG Prelogar already said they wouldn't have contested standing if MOHELA was there in its own name. You don't need the Court to say that, although they certainly could.

OK, true "peak SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be Kavanaugh as the decisive vote to strike down student loan forgiveness, but explaining in a concurrence exactly which arguments Prelogar could've made to get the case thrown out on standing grounds.

[politicallefty]

Peak "SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be the Court throwing out the student loan case on standing grounds, but Kavanaugh writing a concurrence in which he explains exactly how the case could've been brought before the Court correctly, and then that case being brought next summer.

Peak "MOGOP is a bunch of dumbasses" would be a requirement that MOHELA bring the case rather than the state of Missouri, leading to the Missouri GOP trying to appoint loyalists to random MOHELA positions and then failing because this is exactly the sort of inside baseball they're still comically bad at.

In oral arguments, SG Prelogar already said they wouldn't have contested standing if MOHELA was there in its own name. You don't need the Court to say that, although they certainly could.

OK, true "peak SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be Kavanaugh as the decisive vote to strike down student loan forgiveness, but explaining in a concurrence exactly which arguments Prelogar could've made to get the case thrown out on standing grounds.

You were probably right the first time, except that if it's upheld on standing I don't think it'll be back next year.


To continue the topic, SCOTUS seemed to scramble the decisions. Gorsuch got a second opinion in November. I'm now far less sure he has 303 Creative. I wonder it Alito has it now. I'm 99% sure he has Groff though. Maybe affirmative action really will be split.

[Skill and Chance]

If SCOTUS throws out the student loan case and the $10/20K forgiveness goes into effect, could the forgiveness be reversed and the debts be "reinstated" by a future legal challenge next term or later/

[politicallefty]

If SCOTUS throws out the student loan case and the $10/20K forgiveness goes into effect, could the forgiveness be reversed and the debts be "reinstated" by a future legal challenge next term or later/

I've been wondering the same myself. It seems unlikely. SCOTUS forcing a claw back of billions of dollars that was guaranteed forgiven by the government? I've never heard of anything like it.

[Skill and Chance]

Peak "SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be the Court throwing out the student loan case on standing grounds, but Kavanaugh writing a concurrence in which he explains exactly how the case could've been brought before the Court correctly, and then that case being brought next summer.

Peak "MOGOP is a bunch of dumbasses" would be a requirement that MOHELA bring the case rather than the state of Missouri, leading to the Missouri GOP trying to appoint loyalists to random MOHELA positions and then failing because this is exactly the sort of inside baseball they're still comically bad at.

In oral arguments, SG Prelogar already said they wouldn't have contested standing if MOHELA was there in its own name. You don't need the Court to say that, although they certainly could.

OK, true "peak SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be Kavanaugh as the decisive vote to strike down student loan forgiveness, but explaining in a concurrence exactly which arguments Prelogar could've made to get the case thrown out on standing grounds.

You were probably right the first time, except that if it's upheld on standing I don't think it'll be back next year.


To continue the topic, SCOTUS seemed to scramble the decisions. Gorsuch got a second opinion in November. I'm now far less sure he has 303 Creative. I wonder it Alito has it now. I'm 99% sure he has Groff though. Maybe affirmative action really will be split.

Yes, this opens up the possibility of 303 Creative being much more aggressive now. 

[jamestroll]

I am not familiar with Groff, like at all, but would it mean that anyone could just say they are religious and can not work Sunday?

What are we going to do? Let society collapse every Sunday over "religion". lmao. Glad I am NOT a Mormon anymore.

[Donerail]

Peak "SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be the Court throwing out the student loan case on standing grounds, but Kavanaugh writing a concurrence in which he explains exactly how the case could've been brought before the Court correctly, and then that case being brought next summer.

Peak "MOGOP is a bunch of dumbasses" would be a requirement that MOHELA bring the case rather than the state of Missouri, leading to the Missouri GOP trying to appoint loyalists to random MOHELA positions and then failing because this is exactly the sort of inside baseball they're still comically bad at.

In oral arguments, SG Prelogar already said they wouldn't have contested standing if MOHELA was there in its own name. You don't need the Court to say that, although they certainly could.

OK, true "peak SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be Kavanaugh as the decisive vote to strike down student loan forgiveness, but explaining in a concurrence exactly which arguments Prelogar could've made to get the case thrown out on standing grounds.

You were probably right the first time, except that if it's upheld on standing I don't think it'll be back next year.


To continue the topic, SCOTUS seemed to scramble the decisions. Gorsuch got a second opinion in November. I'm now far less sure he has 303 Creative. I wonder it Alito has it now. I'm 99% sure he has Groff though. Maybe affirmative action really will be split.

Yes, this opens up the possibility of 303 Creative being much more aggressive now. 

?? Why would Alito writing make 303 Creative more aggressive than if Gorsuch wrote? Any suggestion Gorsuch isn't writing opens the door to a more measured opinion.

[Vosem]

What are we going to do? Let society collapse every Sunday over "religion". lmao. Glad I am NOT a Mormon anymore.

Presumably companies will simply pay people more to work on Sundays, if you can always take the day off for sincere religious conviction. (Also, while in theory this shouldn't make it harder for religious people to get jobs at all, in practice it probably will to some extent, just because pursuing a civil rights claim is expensive and difficult in the real world.)

[jamestroll]

What are we going to do? Let society collapse every Sunday over "religion". lmao. Glad I am NOT a Mormon anymore.

Presumably companies will simply pay people more to work on Sundays, if you can always take the day off for sincere religious conviction. (Also, while in theory this shouldn't make it harder for religious people to get jobs at all, in practice it probably will to some extent, just because pursuing a civil rights claim is expensive and difficult in the real world.)

I'd drag them to work in chains kicking and screaming.

Society doesn't stop on "Sundays".

[jamestroll]

So now we can look forward to having no policing or fire services on Sundays going forward?

[Skill and Chance]

So now we can look forward to having no policing or fire services on Sundays going forward?

No, but a reasonable interpretation might be something along the lines of "anyone in a position that didn't have to continue working in March of 2020 who can show a sincere religious objection cannot be obligated to work on a holy day of their religion"?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Peak "SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be the Court throwing out the student loan case on standing grounds, but Kavanaugh writing a concurrence in which he explains exactly how the case could've been brought before the Court correctly, and then that case being brought next summer.

Peak "MOGOP is a bunch of dumbasses" would be a requirement that MOHELA bring the case rather than the state of Missouri, leading to the Missouri GOP trying to appoint loyalists to random MOHELA positions and then failing because this is exactly the sort of inside baseball they're still comically bad at.

In oral arguments, SG Prelogar already said they wouldn't have contested standing if MOHELA was there in its own name. You don't need the Court to say that, although they certainly could.

OK, true "peak SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term" would be Kavanaugh as the decisive vote to strike down student loan forgiveness, but explaining in a concurrence exactly which arguments Prelogar could've made to get the case thrown out on standing grounds.

You were probably right the first time, except that if it's upheld on standing I don't think it'll be back next year.


To continue the topic, SCOTUS seemed to scramble the decisions. Gorsuch got a second opinion in November. I'm now far less sure he has 303 Creative. I wonder it Alito has it now. I'm 99% sure he has Groff though. Maybe affirmative action really will be split.

Yes, this opens up the possibility of 303 Creative being much more aggressive now. 

?? Why would Alito writing make 303 Creative more aggressive than if Gorsuch wrote? Any suggestion Gorsuch isn't writing opens the door to a more measured opinion.

Probably an assumption that his decision in Bostock v. Clayton County means he'd be more sympathetic to the pro-LGBT side in that case, which is about as logical as those idiots on Reddit who insisted there was no way Minnesota was going to legalize recreational marijuana based on that grocery stores can still only sell 3.2 beer here and auto dealerships can't be open on Sundays.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If SCOTUS throws out the student loan case and the $10/20K forgiveness goes into effect, could the forgiveness be reversed and the debts be "reinstated" by a future legal challenge next term or later/

I've been wondering the same myself. It seems unlikely. SCOTUS forcing a claw back of billions of dollars that was guaranteed forgiven by the government? I've never heard of anything like it.

Neither have I, but the idea that an injury can be redressed by putting other people in the same injured situation as the plaintiff is already one of the most wacko legal theories I've ever heard, and yet it's a key part of a case that seems to have a roughly even chance of entering our legal canon in the coming days.

What are we going to do? Let society collapse every Sunday over "religion". lmao. Glad I am NOT a Mormon anymore.

Presumably companies will simply pay people more to work on Sundays, if you can always take the day off for sincere religious conviction. (Also, while in theory this shouldn't make it harder for religious people to get jobs at all, in practice it probably will to some extent, just because pursuing a civil rights claim is expensive and difficult in the real world.)

I'd drag them to work in chains kicking and screaming.

Society doesn't stop on "Sundays".

Please explain to me why I shouldn't moderate this post as crass sh**t-stirring against both service workers and devout Christians.

[jamestroll]

If SCOTUS throws out the student loan case and the $10/20K forgiveness goes into effect, could the forgiveness be reversed and the debts be "reinstated" by a future legal challenge next term or later/

I've been wondering the same myself. It seems unlikely. SCOTUS forcing a claw back of billions of dollars that was guaranteed forgiven by the government? I've never heard of anything like it.

Neither have I, but the idea that an injury can be redressed by putting other people in the same injured situation as the plaintiff is already one of the most wacko legal theories I've ever heard, and yet it's a key part of a case that seems to have a roughly even chance of entering our legal canon in the coming days.

What are we going to do? Let society collapse every Sunday over "religion". lmao. Glad I am NOT a Mormon anymore.

Presumably companies will simply pay people more to work on Sundays, if you can always take the day off for sincere religious conviction. (Also, while in theory this shouldn't make it harder for religious people to get jobs at all, in practice it probably will to some extent, just because pursuing a civil rights claim is expensive and difficult in the real world.)

I'd drag them to work in chains kicking and screaming.

Society doesn't stop on "Sundays".

Please explain to me why I shouldn't moderate this post as crass sh**t-stirring against both service workers and devout Christians.

Because its not REALISTIC  to essentially shut down businesses on Sundays. No offense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If SCOTUS throws out the student loan case and the $10/20K forgiveness goes into effect, could the forgiveness be reversed and the debts be "reinstated" by a future legal challenge next term or later/

I've been wondering the same myself. It seems unlikely. SCOTUS forcing a claw back of billions of dollars that was guaranteed forgiven by the government? I've never heard of anything like it.

Neither have I, but the idea that an injury can be redressed by putting other people in the same injured situation as the plaintiff is already one of the most wacko legal theories I've ever heard, and yet it's a key part of a case that seems to have a roughly even chance of entering our legal canon in the coming days.

What are we going to do? Let society collapse every Sunday over "religion". lmao. Glad I am NOT a Mormon anymore.

Presumably companies will simply pay people more to work on Sundays, if you can always take the day off for sincere religious conviction. (Also, while in theory this shouldn't make it harder for religious people to get jobs at all, in practice it probably will to some extent, just because pursuing a civil rights claim is expensive and difficult in the real world.)

I'd drag them to work in chains kicking and screaming.

Society doesn't stop on "Sundays".

Please explain to me why I shouldn't moderate this post as crass sh**t-stirring against both service workers and devout Christians.

Because its not REALISTIC  to essentially shut down businesses on Sundays. No offense.

Okay, yeah, I believe you're advancing that viewpoint honestly, but I don't think it's really on the table here. If we were going to go back to a system of blue laws in this country something for which there are solid left-wing arguments, but we don't have to get into those right now, lots of outwardly very religious people would be among those bellyaching most about how inconvenient it all was.

And even when there were blue laws, emergency services had to be available 24/7. I really doubt Groff would extend any of the protections on the table to, say, firefighters or ER doctors.

[NewYorkExpress]

If SCOTUS throws out the student loan case and the $10/20K forgiveness goes into effect, could the forgiveness be reversed and the debts be "reinstated" by a future legal challenge next term or later/

I've been wondering the same myself. It seems unlikely. SCOTUS forcing a claw back of billions of dollars that was guaranteed forgiven by the government? I've never heard of anything like it.

Neither have I, but the idea that an injury can be redressed by putting other people in the same injured situation as the plaintiff is already one of the most wacko legal theories I've ever heard, and yet it's a key part of a case that seems to have a roughly even chance of entering our legal canon in the coming days.

What are we going to do? Let society collapse every Sunday over "religion". lmao. Glad I am NOT a Mormon anymore.

Presumably companies will simply pay people more to work on Sundays, if you can always take the day off for sincere religious conviction. (Also, while in theory this shouldn't make it harder for religious people to get jobs at all, in practice it probably will to some extent, just because pursuing a civil rights claim is expensive and difficult in the real world.)

I'd drag them to work in chains kicking and screaming.

Society doesn't stop on "Sundays".

Please explain to me why I shouldn't moderate this post as crass sh**t-stirring against both service workers and devout Christians.

Because its not REALISTIC  to essentially shut down businesses on Sundays. No offense.

Okay, yeah, I believe you're advancing that viewpoint honestly, but I don't think it's really on the table here. If we were going to go back to a system of blue laws in this country something for which there are solid left-wing arguments, but we don't have to get into those right now, lots of outwardly very religious people would be among those bellyaching most about how inconvenient it all was.

And even when there were blue laws, emergency services had to be available 24/7. I really doubt Groff would extend any of the protections on the table to, say, firefighters or ER doctors.

I'm sure there sure are people on the Evangelical Right who would like it to.

[soundchaser]

Alito has both Abitron and Groff. Could Sotomayor have Nebraska???

[politicallefty]

Roberts has affirmative action. It's struck down on 14th Amendment grounds, 6-3.

[Ferguson97]

Roberts has affirmative action. It's struck down on 14th Amendment grounds, 6-3.

Disappointing but not surprising.

[Vosem]

Roberts has affirmative action. It's struck down on 14th Amendment grounds, 6-3.

Key paragraph:

(f) Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.

Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh concur separately. Dissents by both Jackson and Sotomayor which all three liberals join.

(BRB, gonna go read the Kavanaugh concurrence to see if he tells liberals how they could've won, if only they made slightly different arguments. EDIT: It is not; it is a direct response to the Sotomayor dissent which explains how the majority is consistent with Grutter, and does not overturn it, and the dissent is inconsistent with Grutter.)

EDIT: Jackson apparently dissented despite recusing which is, uh, different, I guess. Depending on the precise meaning of words, you could say this decision is 6-2 rather than 6-3.

[Aurelius2]

Wonderful news!

[Aurelius2]

Roberts has affirmative action. It's struck down on 14th Amendment grounds, 6-3.

Key paragraph:

(f) Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.

Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh concur separately. Dissents by both Jackson and Sotomayor which all three liberals join.

(BRB, gonna go read the Kavanaugh concurrence to see if he tells liberals how they could've won, if only they made slightly different arguments. EDIT: It is not; it is a direct response to the Sotomayor dissent which explains how the majority is consistent with Grutter, and does not overturn it, and the dissent is inconsistent with Grutter.)

EDIT: Jackson apparently dissented despite recusing which is, uh, different, I guess. Depending on the precise meaning of words, you could say this decision is 6-2 rather than 6-3.

Apparently she only dissented on UNC, though the cases were merged.

[Vosem]

So, uh, is it just me or does the Roberts opinion basically say that, while colleges cannot use race, they can continue to use metrics that are correlated with race, and a particular metric he might approve of is rewarding 'unique skills' which some particular race is likelier to have than another?

That feels like a recipe for a generation of amazing Asian-American soul food chefs to come into existence. More generally, I think if this decision is both taken seriously and there's no large-scale crackdown on woke institutional decision-making, I think we're going to see some amazing examples of Goodhart's Law in action.