No kidding. Geesh. 79 Days until FSU obliterates GT!
I think the Becerra case is important. The People shouldn't have to sue to get what Congress has allocated to them, or to fight the US Government for self determination. It's no secret I'm a fan of Gorsuch, and I'm glad his philosophy supports The People.
The justices seem wary of a large number of cases getting pumped at them from a one man show out in West Texas.
yep, they're definitely on to that, and frankly, to the group upstairs from him. while I'm not quite in the 'no associational standing' camp of justice thomas, the fundamental problem with a lot of these cases is that the plaintiffs are often complete fictions. there is literally no one involved whose ox is being gored, and the 'client' is actually the lawyer.
Who knows what the case is, but perhaps not a bad time to lay money that we get the bump stocks case tomorrow?
agreed, though the absence of the reference is sort of the point
Moore is an interesting read. Everyone agrees, and Barrett emphasizes in her opinion, that unrealized capital gains aren't part of this decision. The majority is simply saying that corporate income must be paid either by the corporation itself, or by the shareholders if the corporation doesn't pay.
probably the opinion i'm most likely to read of today's batch.
I think the majority wanted to take unrealized capital gains off the table as a future tax option. I was a bit surprised at the opinion because oral arguments barely touched the basis for the opinion. I was also surprised at how much attention was shown to taking out the unrealized capital gains from the decision, and saying 16A doesn't allow unrealized capital gains.
How do you feel, or think the court feels, about the slew of cases coming from Louisiana’s decision to put the 10 Commandments inside of classrooms? In Dobbs they seemed to signal to states it was open season on settled law.
I don't see it as being like Dobbs. I see it as perhaps more like Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Philly adoption case, and the redistricting cases. By that, I mean that there'll be an opinion that sort of makes reference to the permissibility of doing things on 'neutral' bases, which really won't be that novel as a legal proposition, and that also contains some language about the impermissibility of things being "animated by religious motivation". My prediction as to outcome, vaguely alluded to in the other thread and again akin to Cakeshop, will be that they'll be too polite to call the state legislature out in so many words in the first go-round, but will say enough to raise questions about how stupidly Louisiana went about this (which I'm sure was pretty stupid), and will remand with directions to consider the record in light of the decision (which will be fairly clear in terms of its "between the lines" message). But of course, it's the fifth circuit, so it'll come back again in a few years, and they'll spank them then.
Tbh when I titled this thread I had the staples back to school ad in mind.
yeah, it doesn't work quite that simplistically, and fwiw, if i were to 'categorize' trump's case, i'd probably not slot it into the normal crim pro bucket. I'd slot it into an executive/interbranch authority issue.
yeah, given that i'm o-for-forever, I'm just going to stay with my yesterday predictions too!
i'll make a deal with you joe. whenever the opinion comes out, whatever it says, neither of us will view it through rose colored glasses.
