Several big decisions coming out of the court today. Rather than post a flood of individual stories I'll try to collect them here: Pacific Standard: The court ruled that First Amendment...
Several big decisions coming out of the court today. Rather than post a flood of individual stories I'll try to collect them here:
RBG and Neil Gorsuch teaming up on double jeopardy, Ted Cruz and AOC teaming up for birth control. Surprised how much bipartisan stuff is suddenly going around, especially since the divides are...
RBG and Neil Gorsuch teaming up on double jeopardy, Ted Cruz and AOC teaming up for birth control. Surprised how much bipartisan stuff is suddenly going around, especially since the divides are way deeper today than they were 20 years ago.
We shouldn't interpret Supreme Court rulings on a case-by-case basis here. It makes a lot more sense when you see the rulings and try to glean what legal precedent the justices are trying to...
We shouldn't interpret Supreme Court rulings on a case-by-case basis here. It makes a lot more sense when you see the rulings and try to glean what legal precedent the justices are trying to develop/establish moving forward. What might seem like moving the ball in this or that direction is more likely to be a legalistic chess move to give up a right or interpretation they don't care about so that the judiciary can use it on future rulings for things they do care about.
For example, rulings on state + federal prosecutions will surely have some long term implications as patchworks of national laws about marijuana legalization start to come online. And the racial gerrymander case didn't actually make a ruling either way on gerrymandering. They threw the case out on a matter of standing. This could be interpreted like keeping their powder dry for a more sympathetic case that doesn't seem so open-and-shut against the GOP.
Several big decisions coming out of the court today. Rather than post a flood of individual stories I'll try to collect them here:
Pacific Standard: The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York
Slate: SCOTUS Just Killed Off Virginia’s Racial Gerrymander
Slate: RBG and Neil Gorsuch Teaming Up Couldn’t Stop a Bad Ruling in a Big Double Jeopardy Case
WaPo: In ruling with implications for Trump’s pardon power, Supreme Court continues to allow state and federal prosecutions for same offense
WaPo: Supreme Court passes on new case involving baker who refused to make wedding cake
RBG and Neil Gorsuch teaming up on double jeopardy, Ted Cruz and AOC teaming up for birth control. Surprised how much bipartisan stuff is suddenly going around, especially since the divides are way deeper today than they were 20 years ago.
Now HOLD ON JUST ONE SECOND. I was told by some VERY smart and WELL educated people that corporations ARE people. So who's lying to me, huh?!
We shouldn't interpret Supreme Court rulings on a case-by-case basis here. It makes a lot more sense when you see the rulings and try to glean what legal precedent the justices are trying to develop/establish moving forward. What might seem like moving the ball in this or that direction is more likely to be a legalistic chess move to give up a right or interpretation they don't care about so that the judiciary can use it on future rulings for things they do care about.
For example, rulings on state + federal prosecutions will surely have some long term implications as patchworks of national laws about marijuana legalization start to come online. And the racial gerrymander case didn't actually make a ruling either way on gerrymandering. They threw the case out on a matter of standing. This could be interpreted like keeping their powder dry for a more sympathetic case that doesn't seem so open-and-shut against the GOP.