Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post

    So the sovereign immunity case was basically that sovereign immunity isn't a way to allow the states to bend you over the table without compensation if it's the federal government that causes the injury?

    I always get tangled up with sovereign immunity, especially when the feds are also involved.
    There's a federal law that requires employers to re-employ soldiers at their old duties after their deployment ends.

    This soldier got injured while deployed and couldn't resume his normal duties as a state trooper. He asked Texas to put him on other duty instead. When Texas refused, he sued.

    Texas argued sovereign immunity, saying it had never agreed to waive its sovereign immunity for this type of claim by an employee.

    The Court said, by a 5-4 vote, that such immunity is inherently waived when the common defense of the country is involved.

    Honestly, I'm kinda on the dissenters side from a technical legal aspect. This isn't a constitutional claim, and there are plenty of other federal employment laws that don't cover states as employers unless they opt in, either explicitly or implicitly by acts like accepting conditional funding.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by unofan View Post

      There's a federal law that requires employers to re-employ soldiers at their old duties after their deployment ends.

      This soldier got injured while deployed and couldn't resume his normal duties as a state trooper. He asked Texas to put him on other duty instead. When Texas refused, he sued.

      Texas argued sovereign immunity, saying it had never agreed to waive its sovereign immunity for this type of claim by an employee.

      The Court said, by a 5-4 vote, that such immunity is inherently waived when the common defense of the country is involved.

      Honestly, I'm kinda on the dissenters side from a technical legal aspect. This isn't a constitutional claim, and there are plenty of other federal employment laws that don't cover states as employers unless they opt in, either explicitly or implicitly by acts like accepting conditional funding.
      I think that's where I'm getting hung up here. WHy would the armed services get a pass but others don't?
      Code:
      As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
      College Hockey 6       College Football 0
      BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
      Originally posted by SanTropez
      May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
      Originally posted by bigblue_dl
      I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
      Originally posted by Kepler
      When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
      He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

      Comment


      • Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post

        I think that's where I'm getting hung up here. WHy would the armed services get a pass but others don't?
        Because it’s the military and the guy was disabled while on deployment.
        U-A-A!!!Go!Go!GreenandGold!
        Applejack Tells You How UAA Is Doing...
        I spell Failure with UAF

        Originally posted by UAFIceAngel
        But let's be real...There are 40 some other teams and only two alaskan teams...the day one of us wins something big will be the day I transfer to UAA
        Originally posted by Doyle Woody
        Best sign by a visting Seawolf fan Friday went to a young man who held up a piece of white poster board that read: "YOU CAN'T SPELL FAILURE WITHOUT UAF."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
          Because it’s the military and the guy was disabled while on deployment.
          That just explains why 5 in the majority found a way to give him what he wanted. But that doesn't mean it was correct. Bad cases make bad law and all that. What else can now be rammed through based on this new common defense loophole.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by unofan View Post

            That just explains why 5 in the majority found a way to give him what he wanted. But that doesn't mean it was correct. Bad cases make bad law and all that. What else can now be rammed through based on this new common defense loophole.
            IANAL but it makes sense to me. States shouldn’t be able to opt out of laws regarding the military and benefits because they don’t like certain ones.

            And it’s not like Texas didn’t opt out, they have military bases in their state and their reps in Congress obviously approved them.
            U-A-A!!!Go!Go!GreenandGold!
            Applejack Tells You How UAA Is Doing...
            I spell Failure with UAF

            Originally posted by UAFIceAngel
            But let's be real...There are 40 some other teams and only two alaskan teams...the day one of us wins something big will be the day I transfer to UAA
            Originally posted by Doyle Woody
            Best sign by a visting Seawolf fan Friday went to a young man who held up a piece of white poster board that read: "YOU CAN'T SPELL FAILURE WITHOUT UAF."

            Comment


            • EPA case is 6-3 along normal party lines. Decision by Roberts.

              Will have to read it too see how broad it goes.

              Comment


              • Say goodbye to Planet Earth.
                **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                Comment


                • Chevron deference survives... isn't mentioned once in the decision.

                  Appears to be limited to the EPA and not broadly killing the administrative state as a whole.

                  May be an end around of it though, by limiting congressional delegation of "major questions" to those that are explicitly delegated.

                  Comment


                  • Biden v Texas is also by Roberts. 5-4 in favor of the government rescinding the stay in Mexico policy, with Kavanaugh and the liberals joining the chief.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by unofan View Post
                      Biden v Texas is also by Roberts. 5-4 in favor of the government rescinding the stay in Mexico policy, with Kavanaugh and the liberals joining the chief.
                      Actually 6-3 on the merits, Barrett agrees but would've kicked it on technical grounds, so she technically dissented.

                      Comment


                      • I'm just so super happy right now that coal is going to get another shot at being profitable and powering our planet into the future. Such an important resource. We need to find as many ways possible to use it.
                        **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                        Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                        Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                        Comment


                        • Given these last two rulings of the session are in ...

                          Thank you Justice Breyer for your service.

                          Congratulations Justice Jackson.
                          The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                          North Dakota Hockey:

                          Comment


                          • Nixon signed the Clean Air Act in 1970. We've done nothing since. What we tried to do has been overruled by Dump's Supreme Court. All praise the United States of America death march.
                            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                              I'm just so super happy right now that coal is going to get another shot at being profitable and powering our planet into the future. Such an important resource. We need to find as many ways possible to use it.
                              Glad to hear you and Sen Tina Smith (D-MN) are onboard with Project Tundra.

                              https://www.projecttundrand.com/
                              The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                              North Dakota Hockey:

                              Comment


                              • Kavanaugh and Barrett want to flood the country with cheap, Catholic babymakin' labor! ;-)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X