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.
Some other good banter from SCOTUSBlog:
--Hello all, just down from the courtroom. There was some buzz in the press section this morning as we arrived, Ginni Thomas was taking her seat in the VIP section.
--She was accompanied by someone that we thought was lawyer Mark Paoletta. Ann Marimow of the Washington Post looked across and said, Yes, that's him.
--No, Ginni is likely here because today is her husband's birthday. Justice Thomas is 75 years old today.
--Maria makes a good point that it is Justice Thomas's birthday today. I assume they will be going to Medieval Times tonight.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
unofan said:
Student loan relief goes bye bye.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SJHovey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kepler said:
6-3, against Justice Pubic Hair, Justice Yacht Bribe, and Justice Handmaid? Or will Justice Beer Boy go for it too?
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
SJHovey said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...

8df.gif
 
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?
 
Kepler said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
unofan said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top