SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

[unofan]

So one week to go, we've got these left:
Affirmative action in college admissions (likely Roberts, possibly Alito)
1st amendment vs anti-discrimination laws (likely Gorsuch)
student loan relief (likely Alito)
Trademark case (likely Sotomayor)
religious accommodation standards (likely Alito, possibly Kagan)

My guesses:
Affirmative action is going bye bye.
anti-discrimination laws - "artists" can discriminate, with some b.s. thrown in about how it won't apply to race but only other protected characteristics.
Student loan relief goes bye bye.
trademark case - Lannan act doesn't apply to purely foreign sales.
Religious accom - probably some clarification that is pro religion, but not a wholesale reversal of traditional standards

Trademark - by Alito (9-0 in judgment, 5-4 in the details.
religious accom - 9-0 by Alito - standard is more than de minimus but still only requires a showing of substantial costs without a full blown undue burden standard as in disability cases.
Affirmative. Action - 6-3 by Roberts - affirm action violates the 14th amendment.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

I knew the court had more security after they stripped away womens bodily autonomy but I didn’t realize they are using 400 US Marshalls

https://***********/kenklippenstein/...3v2cVkMjQylOVg

[dxmnkd316]

6-3, with Gorsuch. Jesus, I remember when people thought he had integrity.

Beer Boy and Handmaid save democracy. For now.

I never would have guessed ACB. Gorsuch.... man

thank ****ing god.

[Kepler]

As long as elections are free and fair, the arc of history will trend toward liberty and equality.

As long as there is prosperity.

When the going gets tough, the middle class turns into Lord of the Flies.

[LynahFan]

Who the f-ck thinks true threat can be protected speech? Seriously? Is this as much of a moral abomination as it appears on the surface, or is there more to this?

Agree, but I'll trade that to send the Independent Legislature Theory to the dustbin of crackpot ideas. As long as elections are free and fair, the arc of history will trend toward liberty and equality.

[Kepler]

Who the f-ck thinks true threat can be protected speech? Seriously? Is this as much of a moral abomination as it appears on the surface, or is there more to this?

[bronconick]

Personal Jurisdiction - 5-4 by Gorsuch (joined by Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Jackson - talk about a strange mix)- states can require out-of-state corps to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition of doing business in the state.
"True threat" - 7-2 by Kagan (Barrett and Thomas dissenting) - law stands, true threats are not protected by 1st amendment, state needs only make a showing of recklessness rather than willfulness.
Independent Legislative theory - 6-3 by Roberts (Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissenting) - State legislatures may be constrained by state constitutional protections, including judicial review, when setting election procedures.

So 2-3 on drafters, 2-3 on outcomes with 5 to go.

[Kepler]

6-3, with Gorsuch. Jesus, I remember when people thought he had integrity.

Beer Boy and Handmaid save democracy. For now.

[unofan]

Wasn't the 1st amendment case a mixed bag for the state? Didn't they argue that the standard is whether a reasonable person would find it threatening, while the convicted person argued for a subjective standard, and the court found somewhere in between? His conviction was vacated, wasn't it, because they used the wrong standard?

Yes, but a standard of recklessness is not at all hard to prove. It's a pyrrhic victory for the defendant. "The court holds instead that a mental state of "recklessness" is enough. The state must show, Kagan writes, that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence. The state need not prove any more demanding subjective intent to threaten another."

So he gets another trial, but the outcome will almost assuredly be the same if he doesn't plead out beforehand.

[SJHovey]

Personal Jurisdiction - 5-4 by Gorsuch (joined by Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Jackson - talk about a strange mix)- states can require out-of-state corps to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition of doing business in the state.
"True threat" - 7-2 by Kagan (Barrett and Thomas dissenting) - law stands, true threats are not protected by 1st amendment, state needs only make a showing of recklessness rather than willfulness.
Independent Legislative theory - 6-3 by Roberts (Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissenting) - State legislatures may be constrained by state constitutional protections, including judicial review, when setting election procedures.

So 2-3 on drafters, 2-3 on outcomes with 5 to go.

Wasn't the 1st amendment case a mixed bag for the state? Didn't they argue that the standard is whether a reasonable person would find it threatening, while the convicted person argued for a subjective standard, and the court found somewhere in between? His conviction was vacated, wasn't it, because they used the wrong standard?

[unofan]

So one week to go, we've got these left:
Affirmative action in college admissions (likely Roberts, possibly Alito)
personal jurisdiction case (likely Kavanaugh)
1st amendment vs anti-discrimination laws (likely Gorsuch)
Independent legislature theory (likely Roberts if shot down, likely Alito if they buy into it)
student loan relief (likely Alito)
Trademark case (likely Sotomayor)
religious accommodation standards (likely Alito, possibly Kagan)
"True threat" standard (likely Kagan, possibly Alito).

My guesses:
Affirmative action is going bye bye.
Personal jurisdiction probably not required (pro business, anti states).
anti-discrimination laws - "artists" can discriminate, with some b.s. thrown in about how it won't apply to race but only other protected characteristics.
independent legislature theory goes down, but by a much closer margin than it should.
Student loan relief goes bye bye.
trademark case - Lannan act doesn't apply to purely foreign sales.
Religious accom - probably some clarification that is pro religion, but not a wholesale reversal of traditional standards
True threat - criminal law will stand.

Personal Jurisdiction - 5-4 by Gorsuch (joined by Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Jackson - talk about a strange mix)- states can require out-of-state corps to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition of doing business in the state.
"True threat" - 7-2 by Kagan (Barrett and Thomas dissenting) - law stands, true threats are not protected by 1st amendment, state needs only make a showing of recklessness rather than willfulness.
Independent Legislative theory - 6-3 by Roberts (Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissenting) - State legislatures may be constrained by state constitutional protections, including judicial review, when setting election procedures.

So 2-3 on drafters, 2-3 on outcomes with 5 to go.

[ScoobyDoo]

did Laura ingraham ever blow Thomas?

We can only assume the answer to that question is yes. Probably with Ginni in the room.

[unofan]

6-3, against Justice Pubic Hair, Justice Yacht Bribe, and Justice Handmaid? Or will Justice Beer Boy go for it too?

Thomas and Alito for sure. Barrett is next most likely. Then Gorsuch, then Kavanaugh. I think Kavanaugh is less likely to go down that rabbit hole because Gorsuch can claim its a state's rights thing.

[unofan]

You don't think they'll bounce those cases on standing? Regardless of what they think of student loan relief, I find it hard to believe that this court wants to spend it's time listening to a broad set of challenges by various states on yet unnamed issues.

I think they should do that, and would be happy if they did, but I think they'll skirt around it. If they wanted to kick based on standing, it likely would've come out Friday with the immigration one that was also kicked for lack of standing.

[mookie1995]

did Laura ingraham ever blow Thomas?