A funny thing happened on the way to the ... um... courthouse. When the Previous Occupant of the White House was able to nominate 3 justices to the Supreme Court, the pols, pundits, and vox populi all predicted the end of civilization as we know it, drowned in a pool of conservative ideology. It seemed like the final undignified middle finger to the majority of the voting public.
Things, however, have turned out a bit differently. The two existing conservatives on the court (Alito and Thomas) are being left to grumble in their little corner, while Chief Justice Roberts and all the young kids are meeting in the middle (including those labeled "most liberal").
The ACA case was a definite eye-opener. One would have thought that the ACA was done for, a noble experiment of the U.S. dipping its toe into the pool of healthcare-for-all drowned in the bathtub of small government. Instead, the vote was an astounding 7-2 to reject the case, as the plaintiffs had no standing. The constitutionality of the law was not mentioned, something that is worrisome, but considering this is the 3rd failed attempt by Republicans to judicially scuttle the popular legislation post-enactment, it seems safe for now.
On the other hand, the court ruled unanimously to strike down a Philadelphia case where the Catholic church was suing because they were excluded from participating in foster placement, due to their refusal to consider same-sex-couple families. The ruling was VERY narrow, siding with the Church because Philadelphia was not applying its own rules equally. Even though the "equal protection under the law" rationale was embraced by all 9 justices, the conservatives thought the ruling did not go far enough.
There still remains a test case that has not yet been brought before this panel, but likely will at some point - a challenge to legal abortion (or - conversely - a challenge to "trap" laws aimed at making abortions nearly impossible to attain). That will be the moment when we can all finally exhale - either in relief or disbelief. However, I can't think of any SCOTUS case where rights - once attained - were taken away.
I hope I never live to see that.
I also hope that Thomas and/or Alito step down in the next year so that President Biden can appoint another justice who will use the law (and not political ideology) to render their decisions.
And may the current newest justices continue to surprise us.
* holds tongue about evil McConnell blocking all SCOTUS noms Biden would list for 2 years or more *
Comment byScoopster on 06/23/2021 14:03:08
Mornin' all..
I'm really not happy with the Senate Dems messaging on this, especially sweeping this thing with Manchin and Sinema under the rug and acting like it's not their fault.
It's like they're banking on the state parties to get their acts together and overcome decades of Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression on the state level, or for the Federal courts to do anything when that ship has sailed too. They might be able to do it in Georgia again, but I severely doubt it after that law change.
Comment byWill in Chicago on 06/23/2021 14:21:32
Good morning, bloggers!!!
I hope that everyone is well.
Comment byScoopster on 06/23/2021 14:39:44
It looks like there's more Supreme Court opinions today..
Collins v Yellen looks mostly like an own goal against the plaintiffs (the shareholders of the FHFA). They tried to get their way & remove regulations created by the 2009 Recovery Act AND at the same time claimed the entire law was unconstitutional since it limited separation of powers, but instead their deregulation claim got tossed on standing AND only the limit on Presidential power in that law was struck.
Public school suspended BL from JV cheerleading for Snapchatting frustration and vulgarity at being rejected from the varsity squad. Pretty clear violation of 1st Amendment.
Comment byBobR on 06/23/2021 14:51:20
TriSec - can you confirm that you created a new account on the Book of Faces and sent me a friend request?
This is a major anti-union decision. California has a state regulation that lets unions have right of access to agricultural property. UFW tried to access a couple farms and the companies that owned them sued.
This decision is really fucked up. It uses the 5th Amendment's takings clause (you know, the same thing that was used to decide Kelo v New London) and expands it to apply to organized labor instead of government.
Comment bylivingonli on 06/23/2021 15:10:39
Just waiting to get my teeth cleaned at the dentist in the building.
Comment byTriSec on 06/23/2021 15:50:51
Ah yes, 'tis true.
The FB account under my real name has been totally sanitized - I only use that for my Scout contacts. I did create a new one under "TriSec Tebeakesse", which I will use for politicking and general commentary. I wish that to remain anonymous and unlinked to my actual information....for reasons.
This is a major anti-union decision. California has a state regulation that lets unions have right of access to agricultural property. UFW tried to access a couple farms and the companies that owned them sued.
This decision is really fucked up. It uses the 5th Amendment's takings clause (you know, the same thing that was used to decide Kelo v New London) and expands it to apply to organized labor instead of government.