Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:49 pm**

stessier wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:50 pm

He goes after the party of the model employee that the majority laid out and upped the guest list to 4:

Woman brings Woman

Man brings Man

The argument is this - in the above scenario "Woman" and "Man" are treated equally. That is, they are both forbidden from bringing their spouses. That shows that they are not being discriminated against on the basis of sex, because the outcome is the same regardless of whether the person doing the inviting is a woman or a man. Rather, they are being discriminated against on the basis of having a partner of the same sex, which is sexual orientation discrimination.

Part of my issue with the argument is that even if conceptually the employer's policy generally might qualify as sexual orientation discrimination and not gender discrimination, still seems like the individual employee is still suffering gender discrimination. Like, that a man might suffer the same discrimination doesn't change the fact that their rights are being restricted on the basis of their fixed gender.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:01 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:49 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:50 pm

He goes after the party of the model employee that the majority laid out and upped the guest list to 4:

Woman brings Woman

Man brings Man

The argument is this - in the above scenario "Woman" and "Man" are treated equally. That is, they are both forbidden from bringing their spouses. That shows that they are not being discriminated against on the basis of sex, because the outcome is the same regardless of whether the person doing the inviting is a woman or a man. Rather, they are being discriminated against on the basis of having a partner of the same sex, which is sexual orientation discrimination.

Part of my issue with the argument is that even if conceptually the employer's policy generally might qualify as sexual orientation discrimination and not gender discrimination, still seems like the individual employee is still suffering gender discrimination. Like, that a man might suffer the same discrimination doesn't change the fact that their rights are being restricted on the basis of their fixed gender.

That's first paragraph just doesn't make any sense to me while the majority's take seems quite clear. The majority argues that you have to look at the individual and from their viewpoint, they want to bring a woman to the party. The fact that they, too, are a woman and can't shows that the decision hinges on her sex. The fact that men are treated similarly (in men not being able to bring men) is irrelevant. I just don't see how you can separate the sex from the orientation discrimination - it seems baked in to me.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:04 pm**

stessier wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:01 pm
El Guapo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:49 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:50 pm

He goes after the party of the model employee that the majority laid out and upped the guest list to 4:

Woman brings Woman

Man brings Man

The argument is this - in the above scenario "Woman" and "Man" are treated equally. That is, they are both forbidden from bringing their spouses. That shows that they are not being discriminated against on the basis of sex, because the outcome is the same regardless of whether the person doing the inviting is a woman or a man. Rather, they are being discriminated against on the basis of having a partner of the same sex, which is sexual orientation discrimination.

Part of my issue with the argument is that even if conceptually the employer's policy generally might qualify as sexual orientation discrimination and not gender discrimination, still seems like the individual employee is still suffering gender discrimination. Like, that a man might suffer the same discrimination doesn't change the fact that their rights are being restricted on the basis of their fixed gender.
That's first paragraph just doesn't make any sense to me while the majority's take seems quite clear. The majority argues that you have to look at the individual and from their viewpoint, they want to bring a woman to the party. The fact that they, too, are a woman and can't shows that the decision hinges on her sex. The fact that men are treated similarly (in men not being able to bring men) is irrelevant. I just don't see how you can separate the sex from the orientation discrimination - it seems baked in to me.

Wouldn't the dissent's argument also imply that a policy that allowed for the firing of a person who was married to a spouse of a different race would not constitute discrimination on the basis of race? After all, the policy would treat all races equally.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:31 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:04 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:01 pm
El Guapo wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:49 pm
stessier wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:50 pm

He goes after the party of the model employee that the majority laid out and upped the guest list to 4:

Woman brings Woman

Man brings Man

The argument is this - in the above scenario "Woman" and "Man" are treated equally. That is, they are both forbidden from bringing their spouses. That shows that they are not being discriminated against on the basis of sex, because the outcome is the same regardless of whether the person doing the inviting is a woman or a man. Rather, they are being discriminated against on the basis of having a partner of the same sex, which is sexual orientation discrimination.

Part of my issue with the argument is that even if conceptually the employer's policy generally might qualify as sexual orientation discrimination and not gender discrimination, still seems like the individual employee is still suffering gender discrimination. Like, that a man might suffer the same discrimination doesn't change the fact that their rights are being restricted on the basis of their fixed gender.
That's first paragraph just doesn't make any sense to me while the majority's take seems quite clear. The majority argues that you have to look at the individual and from their viewpoint, they want to bring a woman to the party. The fact that they, too, are a woman and can't shows that the decision hinges on her sex. The fact that men are treated similarly (in men not being able to bring men) is irrelevant. I just don't see how you can separate the sex from the orientation discrimination - it seems baked in to me.
Wouldn't the dissent's argument also imply that a policy that allowed for the firing of a person who was married to a spouse of a different race would not constitute discrimination on the basis of race? After all, the policy would treat all races equally.

Alito went into that (Kavanaugh didn't address it). He basically said that race discrimination has historically been used to keep a whole group of people down and that sexual orientation discrimination has not had such a historical wrong to right. I really didn't follow the logic - as was the case with most of his dissent. It really seems like Alito would overturn a lot of the decisions made over the years around Title VII, though he never actually said as much.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:36 pm**

stessier wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:31 pmHe basically said that race discrimination has historically been used to keep a whole group of people down and that sexual orientation discrimination has not had such a historical wrong to right.

Yeah - this elicited a WTF from me.

I really didn't follow the logic - as was the case with most of his dissent. It really seems like Alito would overturn a lot of the decisions made over the years around Title VII, though he never actually said as much.

Yeah I've been reading it and have the same feeling and it really highlights how much of an ideologue he is.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:07 pm**

I know you all are debating the finer points, but I just want to use my remaining time to reiterate how much of a POS Justice Kavanaugh is.

Old enough to remember Kavanaugh refused to say whether he agreed with the SCOTUS decision ruling LGBTQ couples have a constitutional right to marry.

Posted: **Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:17 pm**

It's amazing to watch conservative commentators go apeshit over today's ruling. There are always receipts.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:04 am**

Politico

Seven years ago, just nine Senate Republicans supported a bill codifying workplace protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. And after it passed the Senate, the GOP-controlled House never took it up.

But on Monday, the Republican Party seemed generally supportive of both the substance and process by which the Supreme Court extended Civil Rights Act protections to gay, lesbian and transgender workers. President Donald Trump declined to trash the decision, calling it “powerful” — and his party largely agreed with the Supreme Court’s surprising ruling.

“It’s important that we recognize that all Americans have equal rights under our Constitution,” Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) said. “I’m fine with it.”

Plus, the decision could take from Congress a divisive social issue — five months before the 2020 elections. Congress has repeatedly failed to address the issue.

The Democratic Senate’s 2013 passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act was the last serious effort in the Senate at legislating on LGBTQ issues and just four GOP senators that supported that bill remain in office. The Republican Senate has shied away from taking up the matter, a reflection of divisions in the GOP over how — or whether to — address the issue.

“It’s the law of the land. And it probably makes uniform what a lot of states have already done. And probably negates Congress’s necessity for acting,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who ran the Senate Judiciary Committee during Gorsuch's confirmation. He said he was not disappointed by Gorsuch’s decision. Besides Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts also joined the court’s Democrat-appointed justices in the 6-3 ruling.
...
Carrie Severino, president of the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Crisis Network, said that “Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards.” The group spent millions to confirm Gorsuch and block the appointment of Merrick Garland in 2016.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) echoed her remarks.

“This judicial rewriting of our laws short-circuited the legislative process and the authority of the electorate,” he said. “Six un-elected and unaccountable judges instead took it upon themselves to act as legislators, and that undermines our democratic process.”
...
But that’s not how most Senate Republicans see it. They not only defended Gorsuch but also said justices shouldn’t be expected to automatically rule one way or the other.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:09 am**

malchior wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:37 am This is shaping up to a be a perfect highlight of the dysfunction in the United States government. On Friday the Trump administration enshrines a rule establishing a policy of discrimination against LGBT persons in health care. On Monday, the SCOTUS basically says employers aren't allowed to do that. Not entirely matched up in the details but at a high level it is...oy vey.

Or, maybe this is a perfect highlight that all is not lost and our government is functioning as intended, at least to some degree. You know, checks and balances and all that.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:29 am**

Or it’s a perfect highlight that the Republican activists really are deplorable people who would like to sacrifice everything for their hateful agenda.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:17 am**

Kurth wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:09 am
malchior wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:37 am This is shaping up to a be a perfect highlight of the dysfunction in the United States government. On Friday the Trump administration enshrines a rule establishing a policy of discrimination against LGBT persons in health care. On Monday, the SCOTUS basically says employers aren't allowed to do that. Not entirely matched up in the details but at a high level it is...oy vey.
Or, maybe this is a perfect highlight that all is not lost and our government is functioning as intended, at least to some degree. You know, checks and balances and all that.

This is a pretty bad take. This was a major moment for many people but it was a dispute that came to them from outside the Government. The Robert's court still generally head nods at the never ending expansion of Presidential power and erosion of checks and balances.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:52 pm**

malchior wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:17 am
Kurth wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:09 am
malchior wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:37 am This is shaping up to a be a perfect highlight of the dysfunction in the United States government. On Friday the Trump administration enshrines a rule establishing a policy of discrimination against LGBT persons in health care. On Monday, the SCOTUS basically says employers aren't allowed to do that. Not entirely matched up in the details but at a high level it is...oy vey.
Or, maybe this is a perfect highlight that all is not lost and our government is functioning as intended, at least to some degree. You know, checks and balances and all that.
This is a pretty bad take. This was a major moment for many people but it was a dispute that came to them from outside the Government. The Robert's court still generally head nods at the never ending expansion of Presidential power and erosion of checks and balances.

I hear what you're saying, but I think you're seeing the glass half full. Yes, it's not like the Roberts court struck down a Trump administration rule or law, but it is refreshing to see that the justices are not all partisan hacks. This is an important decision, and it clearly has many in the conservative echo chamber fuming and beating the usual drums about "unelected judges" legislating from the bench. I'd call that a win for a government that cannot function as intended without an independent judiciary.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:21 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:42 pm
malchior wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:28 am I'm enjoying the right-wing Twitter meltdowns. Ben Shapiro is having a fit as expected. He is calling it a major disruption to employement law. Lol. Here is how disruptive I imagine it'll be:

HR: "Oh we can't discriminate based on sexual orientation? Ok, I'll go update the policy and training for next year. Everyone good?". Fin.
Actually, for a lot of employers (like mine), it'll be more like, "Oh, we can't discriminate based on sexual orientation? Well, we've had that in our policies and training for years now, so I guess I'll surf the web for a while."

Heck, my employer was owned and governed by an evangelical church up until this year and they had a sexual orientation non-discrimination policy in place long before I got there. And not just policy but also practice as evidenced by my many LGBT co-workers.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:23 pm**

As a side note, if it hasn't been said, fuck any of those SCOTUS judges that voted against workplace protections based on gender and sexuality. Those people are on the wrong side of history and shouldn't be trusted with signing a permission slip for their kids to go to the zoo.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:39 pm**

Paingod wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:23 pm As a side note, if it hasn't been said, fuck any of those SCOTUS judges that voted against workplace protections based on gender and sexuality. Those people are on the wrong side of history and shouldn't be trusted with signing a permission slip for their kids to go to the zoo.

I don't agree with their decision but I'm pretty sure I don't want Supreme Court justices to render decisions based on how they think it will affect their position in history. No matter how bad I think their appointment was.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:17 am**

SCOTUS, in a 5-4 ruling, decides that efforts to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, blocking Trump's efforts to end DACA. Chief Justice Roberts joins Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer in this ruling.

However, as the decision was not an equal protection decision, the administration can technically still end DACA as long as they do it "correctly".

Short thread here:

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:27 am**

pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:17 am However, as the decision was not an equal protection decision, the administration can technically still end DACA as long as they do it "correctly".

I haven't read anything - does it say how long it takes to do "correctly"?

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:32 am**

stessier wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:27 am
pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:17 am However, as the decision was not an equal protection decision, the administration can technically still end DACA as long as they do it "correctly".
I haven't read anything - does it say how long it takes to do "correctly"?

No idea. I'm only going off of news reports and tweets.

A couple of people likened it to Roberts' decision on the citizenship question - like there, he wrote it's *technically* possible to do it "correctly", but the way the administration tried to do it was totally wrong.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:41 am**

I'm waiting for Trump to ask for a refund. He thought he'd bought a Supreme Court.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:54 am**

pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:32 am
stessier wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:27 am
pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:17 am However, as the decision was not an equal protection decision, the administration can technically still end DACA as long as they do it "correctly".
I haven't read anything - does it say how long it takes to do "correctly"?
No idea. I'm only going off of news reports and tweets.

A couple of people likened it to Roberts' decision on the citizenship question - like there, he wrote it's *technically* possible to do it "correctly", but the way the administration tried to do it was totally wrong.

Yeah, I don't understand this. DACA was installed via executive order, how hard can it be for Trump to end it via executive order? It's been almost 4 years now, whatever needs to be done to do it "right", it can't be all that hard, can it? I know Trump is incompetent but surely they have some competent DOJ lawyers who can explain to the administration how to go about doing this in the "right way".

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:05 am**

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:15 am**

Yeah... that....

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:19 am**

Trump's ranting on Twitter about this of course.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:22 am**

Back to the 2A, eh? He's really trying to warm himself up for Saturday, right?

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:53 am**

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:54 am
pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:32 am
stessier wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:27 am
pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:17 am However, as the decision was not an equal protection decision, the administration can technically still end DACA as long as they do it "correctly".
I haven't read anything - does it say how long it takes to do "correctly"?
No idea. I'm only going off of news reports and tweets.

A couple of people likened it to Roberts' decision on the citizenship question - like there, he wrote it's *technically* possible to do it "correctly", but the way the administration tried to do it was totally wrong.
Yeah, I don't understand this. DACA was installed via executive order, how hard can it be for Trump to end it via executive order? It's been almost 4 years now, whatever needs to be done to do it "right", it can't be all that hard, can it? I know Trump is incompetent but surely they have some competent DOJ lawyers who can explain to the administration how to go about doing this in the "right way".

It is for Trump. The incompetence runs deep when you are trying to please him. Saying no tends to get you fired and replaced by an even less competent yes man/political officer/grifter.

Look at how idiotically they have been fighting Bolton's book - too little, too late (when they had months). Look at North Korea, China, etc.

Hell, look at the photo op. Illegal dispersment of the crowds followed by an, ok, we're here, now what? moment.

Don't forget that in 2017 there was a deal on the table - preserve DACA, get Wall funding. Now he has neither.

Even his signature legislation, the tax cut, was riddled with errors and unintended loopholes.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:00 pm**

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV. GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to all but Part IV. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinionconcurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part anddissenting in part, in which ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment in partand dissenting in part.

Geez, come on people...let's work a little harder to get on the same page.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:01 pm**

Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:54 am
pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:32 am
stessier wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:27 am
pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:17 am However, as the decision was not an equal protection decision, the administration can technically still end DACA as long as they do it "correctly".
I haven't read anything - does it say how long it takes to do "correctly"?
No idea. I'm only going off of news reports and tweets.

A couple of people likened it to Roberts' decision on the citizenship question - like there, he wrote it's *technically* possible to do it "correctly", but the way the administration tried to do it was totally wrong.
Yeah, I don't understand this. DACA was installed via executive order, how hard can it be for Trump to end it via executive order? It's been almost 4 years now, whatever needs to be done to do it "right", it can't be all that hard, can it? I know Trump is incompetent but surely they have some competent DOJ lawyers who can explain to the administration how to go about doing this in the "right way".

Trump is a lazy authoritarian and mostly attracts c and d-level talent who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of power. They can't govern. They either don't want to invite the scrutiny that following the process involves or do the work to get it done. We've generally been lucky that Trump is this broken and incompetent.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:31 pm**

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:01 pm
Grifman wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:54 am
pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:32 am
stessier wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:27 am
pr0ner wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:17 am However, as the decision was not an equal protection decision, the administration can technically still end DACA as long as they do it "correctly".
I haven't read anything - does it say how long it takes to do "correctly"?
No idea. I'm only going off of news reports and tweets.

A couple of people likened it to Roberts' decision on the citizenship question - like there, he wrote it's *technically* possible to do it "correctly", but the way the administration tried to do it was totally wrong.
Yeah, I don't understand this. DACA was installed via executive order, how hard can it be for Trump to end it via executive order? It's been almost 4 years now, whatever needs to be done to do it "right", it can't be all that hard, can it? I know Trump is incompetent but surely they have some competent DOJ lawyers who can explain to the administration how to go about doing this in the "right way".
Trump is a lazy authoritarian and mostly attracts c and d-level talent who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of power. They can't govern. They either don't want to invite the scrutiny that following the process involves or do the work to get it done. We've generally been lucky that Trump is this broken and incompetent.

Yep,

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1273653077728473088

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:37 pm**

This footnote from the majority opinion on page 22

3 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH further argues that the contemporaneous explanation requirement applies only to agency adjudications, not rule-makings. Post, at 5–6 (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). But he cites no authority limiting this basic principle—which the Court regularly articulates in the context of rulemakings—toadjudications. The Government does not even raise this unheralded argument.

is the equivalent of saying "you cray cray Bro", right?

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:43 pm**

stessier wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:37 pm This footnote from the majority opinion on page 22

3 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH further argues that the contemporaneous explanation requirement applies only to agency adjudications, not rule-makings. Post, at 5–6 (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). But he cites no authority limiting this basic principle—which the Court regularly articulates in the context of rulemakings—toadjudications. The Government does not even raise this unheralded argument.
is the equivalent of saying "you cray cray Bro", right?

Yes. A gentle call out that says hey - you are making shit up. Not cool.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:02 pm**

I finished the majority. This is not a win for DACA - this is a temporary reprieve. If they need to ask for public comment, it might not be possible to get it done before Jan 2021, but if Trump wins again, this is definitely going away.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:12 pm**

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:22 am Back to the 2A, eh? He's really trying to warm himself up for Saturday, right?

I maintain hammering the SC got him elected in 2016. Four yeas later, I still don't understand why Clinton and her support group did not engage this thinking at every turn.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:54 pm**

I find Thomas' dissent pretty convincing. I definitely see his point in this ruling causing problems for other agencies in the future.

The final tally for the positions:

Can the court review this under APA?
- Yes - Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor
- No - Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
Was the action arbitrary-and-capricious?
- Yes - Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor
  No, but even if it was, it doesn't matter because DACA was unlawful and that is enough to allow the recission - Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
Can the court review the Equal Protections argument?
- Yes - Sotomayer
- No - Everyone else

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 3:50 pm**

stessier wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:02 pm I finished the majority. This is not a win for DACA - this is a temporary reprieve. If they need to ask for public comment, it might not be possible to get it done before Jan 2021, but if Trump wins again, this is definitely going away.

I tend to assume that Roberts voted the way he did thinking basically "look, the election's in five months, let's just keep things in place for now, and maybe afterwards Congress will actually fix this."

If Trump wins that all changes, and it's hard to see Roberts stopping the ending of DACA twice.

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 3:50 pm**

There's always the Congressional Review Act...

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2020 4:00 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 3:50 pm
stessier wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:02 pm I finished the majority. This is not a win for DACA - this is a temporary reprieve. If they need to ask for public comment, it might not be possible to get it done before Jan 2021, but if Trump wins again, this is definitely going away.
I tend to assume that Roberts voted the way he did thinking basically "look, the election's in five months, let's just keep things in place for now, and maybe afterwards Congress will actually fix this."

I guess, but I don't know that it's a very good thing for them to consider.

If Trump wins that all changes, and it's hard to see Roberts stopping the ending of DACA twice.

He gave them the road map to do it correctly, so barring incompetence from whomever is in charge of DHS, I'd have to agree.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:20 am**

In June Medical Services v. Russo, the justices struck down a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients at nearby hospitals.

Roberts concurred with the liberal wing only to uphold the precedent he believes was wrongly decided. I haven't read it all though.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:20 am**

If they flip one more Trump pick in there we are totally screwed. Trump won't be sending any steaks to Roberts that's for sure.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:29 am**

Roberts knows that the legitimacy of the SCOTUS is on the line. Ironically, it just highlights how ideological the court is and is just him choosing how much damage the institution takes.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:44 am**

malchior wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:29 am Roberts knows that the legitimacy of the SCOTUS is on the line. Ironically, it just highlights how ideological the court is and is just him choosing how much damage the institution takes.

At least Roberts is in "save the institution mode" and not "get everything for the conservative movement while we can" mode. Also a good indication that he won't invalidate the entire ACA, though this could be another chance to knock another brick out of the edifice.

Meanwhile....still waiting for Mazars.

Octopus Overlords

SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch