Supreme Court Rulings

[JohnSnowsHair]

 

 

[Dave Moss]

 

 

[lynched1]

3 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

 

 

Hope is a glorious thing. It's the reality that gets you.

[lynched1]

With the ruling for religious adoption services will the liberals be going for 10 additional justices to pack the supreme court? 🤔

[PoconoDon]

46 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

With the ruling for religious adoption services will the liberals be going for 10 additional justices to pack the supreme court? 🤔

Nah, that 9-0 vote spoke volumes. The left has to take their "L" and move on. The best part is that it was a smackdown for the Philly city government.

[Dave Moss]

10 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Nah, that 9-0 vote spoke volumes. The left has to take their "L" and move on. The best part is that it was a smackdown for the Philly city government.

Sounds like there wan’t much agreement despite it being 9-0

[PoconoDon]

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Sounds like there wan’t much agreement despite it being 9-0

There should always be vigorous and thoughtful debate in the SCOTUS. In the end however, like most things in life, behavior matters most, and the unanimous vote is their behavior.

The message is clear. UnConstitutional political views may be held but not acted upon.

[Alpha_TATEr]

13 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

The best part is that it was a smackdown for the Philly city government.

i cant lie and say this part didnt make me giggle. 

[jsdarkstar]

Born a girl, and now a guy, the S. Court allows him to use the Men's Room.

Supreme Court won't hear dispute over bathrooms for transgender students

 

Supreme Court won't hear dispute over bathrooms for transgender students

 

Pete Williams

Mon, June 28, 2021, 9:59 AM

 

 

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the issue of whether the nation's schools must allow students to use the bathroom that match their gender identities.

The court declined, without comment, to hear the case of Gavin Grimm, who has been at the center of a long legal battle with the school board in Gloucester County, Virginia. Grimm was born female but identified as male after his freshman year in high school, legally changing his name and beginning hormone therapy.

The principal at first gave him permission to use the boys' bathroom, but the school board later adopted a policy saying restrooms were "limited to the corresponding biological genders."

"For school officials, as for parents, the question how best to respond to a teenager who identifies with the opposite biological sex is often excruciatingly difficult," lawyers for the school district told the Supreme Court. But the privacy rights of millions of students are at risk if their transgender classmates are allowed to use bathrooms matching their gender identities, they said.

[toolg]

SCOTUS effectively does nothing, as Texas passes a law effectively banning all abortion. This goes against Roe v. Wade, against precedents prohibiting states from banning abortion before 22-24 weeks.

 

[mayanh8]

1 minute ago, toolg said:

SCOTUS effectively does nothing, as Texas passes a law effectively banning all abortion. This goes against Roe v. Wade, against precedents prohibiting states from banning abortion before 22-24 weeks.

 

Nothing beats waking up to Republican self-sabotage in the morning.

[we_gotta_believe]

5 minutes ago, toolg said:

SCOTUS effectively does nothing, as Texas passes a law effectively banning all abortion. This goes against Roe v. Wade, against precedents prohibiting states from banning abortion before 22-24 weeks.

 

I'm not following the headline. Did the SCOTUS refuse to hear the case? How exactly did they "allow" this to happen?

[Dave Moss]

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm not following the headline. Did the SCOTUS refuse to hear the case? How exactly did they "allow" this to happen?

Yes, they let it become law by not acting last night (I guess)

[toolg]

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm not following the headline. Did the SCOTUS refuse to hear the case? How exactly did they "allow" this to happen?

Appeals were filed to federal courts, but nothing was ruled before the law went into effect today. So no, I don't think we've heard the last from this. So many challenges to the law, I feel courts will have to rule eventually.

[mayanh8]

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm not following the headline. Did the SCOTUS refuse to hear the case? How exactly did they "allow" this to happen?

They haven't ruled on it. 99% of the time, when a ruling is set to go into effect that will fundamentally change the law for millions of Americans, SCOTUS will act quickly to immediately issue a temporary ruling either blocking it or allowing it.

In this case, they've done nothing which allows the law to be enforced. And, as I understand it from people who are talking about, when that happens the track record of SCOTUS retroactively going back and revisiting the law is not a guarantee. So the thought is they might let it go. But I'm no expert.

[Dave Moss]

One of the stipulations of the new law that I heard was that women have to get 2 ultrasounds before they can get an abortion.

[jsdarkstar]

On 6/17/2021 at 7:33 PM, lynched1 said:

With the ruling for religious adoption services will the liberals be going for 10 additional justices to pack the supreme court? 🤔

Will McConnell steal another Supreme Court Seat? 

[mayanh8]

Just now, Dave Moss said:

One of the stipulations of the new law that I heard was that women have to get 2 ultrasounds before they can get an abortion.

Is that before the six week ban?

[we_gotta_believe]

2 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

They haven't ruled on it. 99% of the time, when a ruling is set to go into effect that will fundamentally change the law for millions of Americans, SCOTUS will act quickly to immediately issue a temporary ruling either blocking it or allowing it.

In this case, they've done nothing which allows the law to be enforced. And, as I understand it from people who are talking about, when that happens the track record of SCOTUS retroactively going back and revisiting the law is not a guarantee. So the thought is they might let it go. But I'm no expert.

Gotcha. If I had to bet, I'd say they eventually hear the case and stick with precedent which is 2nd trimester I think. 

[Gannan]

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

One of the stipulations of the new law that I heard was that women have to get 2 ultrasounds before they can get an abortion.

Nothing says small government like medical procedures mandated by the state!

[toolg]

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

One of the stipulations of the new law that I heard was that women have to get 2 ultrasounds before they can get an abortion.

No, not really. LINK  The new Texas law skirts around state prosecution. It allows private citizens to file civil suit for $10,000 against anyone involved in any abortion procedure - doctors, clinic workers, somebody giving a ride to woman going to a clinic, etc. You don't have to show any relation to anybody involved to file suit against them. Any nosy Nancy can file lawsuits.

Quote

It also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone else who helps a woman obtain an abortion, including those who give a woman a ride to a clinic or provide financial assistance in obtaining an abortion. Private citizens who bring these suits don't need to show any connection to those they are suing. If they prevail, the law entitles them to a minimum of $10,000 in damages plus attorney fees.

 

[Gannan]

We can now also scratch "cutting down on frivolous lawsuits" off the list of republican policy positions. 

[mayanh8]

 

[vikas83]

50 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

They haven't ruled on it. 99% of the time, when a ruling is set to go into effect that will fundamentally change the law for millions of Americans, SCOTUS will act quickly to immediately issue a temporary ruling either blocking it or allowing it.

In this case, they've done nothing which allows the law to be enforced. And, as I understand it from people who are talking about, when that happens the track record of SCOTUS retroactively going back and revisiting the law is not a guarantee. So the thought is they might let it go. But I'm no expert.

So, to answer this more robustly, the Supreme Court refused to offer a temporary restraining order or a stay pending appeal in this case. Either of these would prevent the law from going into effect until they had a chance to hear the case. The trick is -- getting a TRO or a stay is a high legal standard as you must prove irreparable harm. Essentially, the court has to rule that without it stopping the law from going into effect, people will suffer damages for which they can't be compensated. In this case, people who violate the law will be sued and/or fined, meaning that if the law is later found to be invalid, the harm can be rectified (the money returned) and therefore is not irreparable.

As for how the Court will ultimately rule, the fact they didn't issue a TRO or stay doesn't mean that they will uphold the law. It's not a great sign (another test is they can refuse the TRO/stay if they believe the petitioner has no chance of success on appeal), but there are plenty of cases where the court overturns after denying a stay. The key here seems to be the use of monetary damages, which almost by definition are not irreparable. 

[mayanh8]

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

So, to answer this more robustly, the Supreme Court refused to offer a temporary restraining order or a stay pending appeal in this case. Either of these would prevent the law from going into effect until they had a chance to hear the case. The trick is -- getting a TRO or a stay is a high legal standard as you must prove irreparable harm. Essentially, the court has to rule that without it stopping the law from going into effect, people will suffer damages for which they can't be compensated. In this case, people who violate the law will be sued and/or fined, meaning that if the law is later found to be invalid, the harm can be rectified (the money returned) and therefore is not irreparable.

As for how the Court will ultimately rule, the fact they didn't issue a TRO or stay doesn't mean that they will uphold the law. It's not a great sign (another test is they can refuse the TRO/stay if they believe the petitioner has no chance of success on appeal), but there are plenty of cases where the court overturns after denying a stay. The key here seems to be the use of monetary damages, which almost by definition are not irreparable. 

So is the notion that the longer SCOTUS goes without issuing a stay, the more likely in becomes that they let the law stand.