U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

BREAKING: Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Obama-era health care law, preserving coverage for millions of Americans. https://t.co/lIwN9IeEGF

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 17, 2021

surprised Thomas and Coney Barrett joined the libs

Alito is displeased. https://t.co/UZjWJGoPc6 pic.twitter.com/0iTGN38sp4

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 17, 2021

any chance at restoring the penalty tax?

As somebody looking for ACA marketplace coverage for the first time, this ruling is a big relief. Our marketplace options are all pretty expensive to what we've been paying for cushy employer insurance, but manageable — and the coverage is pretty good.

pretty cool that it was 8-1 in favor of child slavery tho

i just checked neal katyal's twitter to see if he has commented. weird that he'd be tweeting about the ACA case but not the child slavery case he won. must be very busy.

but lol

Been so busy w/briefs I didn't realize @matsoR and @Jbrekkie both just released new records. Can't wait to listen. And @mountain_goats released like 3 records recorded in 1 month, slackers.

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) June 17, 2021

#onethread

let's file some briefs and be alright

let's fill some briefs

Obama's Solicitor General out here doing work!

Yes We Can (have child slaves)

— Islamo-leftist (@EngelsFreddie) December 2, 2020

The Supreme Court's second decision of the day is in NCAA v. Alston. In an opinion by Gorsuch, the court *unanimously* upholds the district court's injunction against the NCAA based on "established anti-trust principles"! This is a big deal. https://t.co/JcdyRepr9l pic.twitter.com/FlEVHAZhTF

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 21, 2021

If only "established anti-trust principles" could be revived against US mega-corporations then we'd be getting somewhere.

why so anti-trust, we need MORE trust in America!!

Fortunately I read the part where Kav endorses collective bargaining before lunch

even a stopped clock etc etc

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/23/1001382019/supreme-court-rules-cheerleaders-f-bombs-are-protected-by-the-first-amendment

The union decision tho

I'm in Clarence Thomas's little home town, ask me anything!

have you considered changing your display name to Josh in Pin Point?

COFFIN FLOP

xpost Too late, already gone. it's a small town.

We're going to end up with a 7-2 court because the calendar of a liberal justice's book promotion tour made it more appealing for him to cultivate suspense around his retirement during the rare window of Dem governance... https://t.co/dmY2cOkD4X pic.twitter.com/h1LfxVQ4ss

— Taniel (@Taniel) August 27, 2021

just an old man thinkin' bout things

yes

The conservative Supreme Court justices argued that allowing the Biden eviction moratorium to remain could pave way for these kinds of outcomes pic.twitter.com/zsJ0rIryik

— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) August 30, 2021

Not the best day.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp-video/mmvo119970885688

Supreme Court showing how destructive it can be by doing nothing.

What recourse is there if the court blatantly ignores constitutional infractions? Like, what if a state overturned, say, election results, with no legit legal basis, and the court just let that stand?

Like, what if a state overturned, say, election results, with no legit legal basis, and the court just let that stand?

I don't think we'll have to wait longer than say, a little over one or three years, to find out what happens.

I still think the court is going to rule on this. Not doing so kind of flies in the face of their gutting liberal priorities very slowly tactic that Roberts has implemented. But it’s also possible they don’t care anymore.

Roberts is the dude at the party who signals to his bros to clear the fridge of beer, then, when they've finished, approaches the host and says, smiling, "We cleaned the house. Need anything else?"

We get it, ok? The golden boy likes beer! They ALL liked beer!

So they do not, in fact, care anymore

BREAKING: By a 5–4 vote, with Roberts joining the liberals, the Supreme Court REFUSES to block Texas' six-week abortion ban.

Opinions here: https://t.co/elazEg3xdZ

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) September 2, 2021

It says legal challenges can continue. Anybody with a better understanding that can explain how that will work?

Fuck everyone who called us alarmists and hysterical. Fuck every single one of them.

A) half the states in the country are going to xerox the Texas law's language and enact it in their own states next week.
B) the floodgates are open...

My astonished rage cleared for a second and I realized that, according to this decision, states can pass all kinds of unconstitutional laws as long as they leave the enforcement to bounty hunters.
Jesus, we're back at the Kansas-Nebraska Act again.

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) September 2, 2021

Woulda been cool if Ginsberg had retired before 2014.

Think Breyer will take a fuckin HINT now?

Depends on his book sales.

Sounds like the existing challenges will proceed in lower courts without the benefit of a temporary injunction. Which means eventually, maybe we get lucky and a federal court rules on the actual legality of the law and strikes it down, and SCOTUS either doesn't hear the appeal or concurs.

None of that is a given, but in the interim, millions of Texas women have lost the ability to get an abortion. Oklahoma already reporting an uptick in abortion patients from Texas.

But not everyone in Texas has that luxury.

A few thoughts from the point of view of Remedies law on the Supreme Court's 5-4 order tonight that has the effect of letting Texas ban all abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy: https://t.co/N9iROS9fqg /1

— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) September 2, 2021

Good morning!

The majority opinion was unsigned and consisted of a single long paragraph. It said the abortion providers who had challenged the law in an emergency application to the court had not made their case in the face of “complex and novel” procedural questions. The majority stressed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the Texas law and did not mean to limit “procedurally proper challenges” to it.

Majority: "Great idea, dudes! We don't mean to strike down the law, so we'll watch to see what y'all come up with!"

on one hand the floodgates theory may be the only thing in favor of this ultimately being invalidated (justices not being ok with the state delegating criminal law enforcement to any random person and therefore escaping any and all constitutional protections for the defendant), on the other hand these people are so evil that they are probably cool with that

I've never seen Roberts write such a fiery dissent when siding with the libs. Guess he thought, "Hey, guys, there's a right way and a righter way to destroy Roe."

it's pure ass covering

whole thing is jaw-dropping, nakedly evil. should be the biggest story in the country until something - court-packing, federal law, constitutional amendment - is done.

I think this will eventually get overturned but Robert's project to kill liberal priorities by 1000 paper cuts will continue unabated

Isn’t enforcement of the Americans With Disabilities Act left up to private citizens?

yes but you need to have standing and it's not a criminal law in disguise, and the main remedy is fixing the thing that is causing harm to the plaintiff. this allows any person to file a "civil lawsuit" where the penalty is a minimum $10k fine and lawyer's fees to the plaintiff if they win. they also can get an injunction but the plaintiff doesn't need to be affected in any way to file, and the injunction doesn't do anything to help them, it just stops the abortion from happening.