What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Status
Not open for further replies.
unofan said:
2nd and final one today is a case involving service members' right to return to their other jobs after being deployed. Texas had argued sovereign immunity as a defense. 5-4 by Breyer (Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the liberals). By joining the union, States implicitly waived sovereign immunity with respect to anything dealing with the common national defense.
Click to expand...
How in the fuck was this 5-4? Support our troops indeed…
 
Barrett don’t care about a man if he’s unable to Impregnate a white woman

I’ve seen question posed- did Barrett rule this way in anticipation of trying to allow abortions on reservation land
 
Last edited:
unofan said:
1st up today is a criminal case involving a Native American - 5-4 by Kavanaugh; Gorsuch dissents along with the liberals. Another one where replacing Ginsburg with Barrett made the difference.

Edit: Sorry, this was a non-NA who committed a crime on tribal land against a native. Court holds state and feds have concurrent jurisdiction. Gorsuch and the liberals would've said Feds have exclusive jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Obviously not a "major crime." Do you know whether it was a felony or misdemeanor? Most of those jurisdiction permutations have been addressed.
 
unofan said:
2nd and final one today is a case involving service members' right to return to their other jobs after being deployed. Texas had argued sovereign immunity as a defense. 5-4 by Breyer (Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the liberals). By joining the union, States implicitly waived sovereign immunity with respect to anything dealing with the common national defense.

That's all for today.

The 2 left are both big ones. WVa v. EPA and Texas v. Biden. Both will be released tomorrow (Court announced tomorrow is the final day of the term).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
dxmnkd316 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that's where I'm getting hung up here. WHy would the armed services get a pass but others don't?
 
Jimjamesak said:
Because it’s the military and the guy was disabled while on deployment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
EPA case is 6-3 along normal party lines. Decision by Roberts.

Will have to read it too see how broad it goes.
 
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.
 
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.
 
unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually 6-3 on the merits, Barrett agrees but would've kicked it on technical grounds, so she technically dissented.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top