Awful, awful grant. This case gives SCOTUS a back door to effectively overturn Miranda by holding that there is no constitutional right to receive Miranda warnings. A truly bad omen.
This grant, too, is profoundly disturbing. The coach and his attorneys have brazenly lied about the facts of the case to tee up Supreme Court vehicle that will legalize a great deal of prayer in public schools. Looks like the justices took the bait.
Days after invalidating Ohio's gerrymandering legislative maps, the Ohio Supreme Court strikes down the state's gerrymandered congressional maps, which gave Republicans a 12–3 advantage. supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0…
A lot to unpack here but I'm fascinated by this exchange over the dissenters' decision to issue a jointly authored opinion. They cite yesterday's joint dissent by SCOTUS' three liberals in the COVID mandate case. supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0…
I just want to reiterate how demented the Republican dissenters' position is in these cases ... The people of Ohio overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment restricting partisan gerrymandering and the dissenters say the Ohio Supreme Court can't enforce it. Lunacy.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court *blocks* Biden's vaccinate-or-test employer mandate by a 6–3 vote but *upholds* Biden's vaccine mandate for health care workers by a 5–4 vote. I will post the opinion in a moment.
Here is the opinion upholding Biden's vaccinate mandate for health care workers by a 5–4 vote, with Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the liberals: supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
In the decision blocking Biden's COVID employer mandate, the liberal justices issue a very rare joint dissent, authored by all three together.
"When we are wise, we know enough to defer on matters like this one. ... Today, we are not wise." supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
I'm not even going to link because it's too depressing but Federalist Society law professors are already feverishly crafting theories about how courts should eviscerate or invalidate this bill if it somehow passed. The Senate is a problem. The courts are a bigger problem.
It's fun/horrific to imagine the legal academy's reaction to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 if today's Federalist Society infrastructure existed back then. You would have endless blog posts explaining why CoNgReSs JuSt CaN't EnD jIm CrOw couched in deviously neutral legalese.
And if today's pipeline from FedSoc to the federal judiciary existed in 1965, a lone federal judge would have issued a nationwide injunction against the entire Voting Rights Act, and we'd get Volokh Conspiracy posts about how anyone who disagreed was a #resistance hack.
The Supreme Court's first and only opinion of the day is in a civil service pension case, Babcock v. Kijakazi. No vaccine decisions. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Gorsuch expresses "trepidation" about being "the only dissenter on this narrow question of statutory
interpretation."
"I would not ... curtail servicemembers’ Social Security benefits based primarily on implications extracted from other, separate 'bookkeeping' statutes."
A group of North Carolina voters have filed a lawsuit seeking to disqualify Madison Cawthorn from the 2022 ballot under the 14th Amendment, arguing that he supported an "insurrection or rebellion" by allegedly facilitating the attack on the Capitol. freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/upl…
The 14th Amendment bars anyone who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the U.S. from holding a seat in Congress.
The voters challenging Cawthorn's candidacy are represented by, among others, a former Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, James G. Exum.
The challengers to Cawthorn's candidacy cite an opinion by then-Judge Neil Gorsuch holding if a candidate is ineligible for federal office, a state may prevent him from appearing on the ballot in the first place. casetext.com/case/hassan-v-…
Kagan is such a strong communicator on vaccine mandates.
"This is a pandemic in which nearly a million people have died ... This is the policy that is most geared to stop all this. ... So whatever 'necessary' means, whatever 'grave' means, why isn't this necessary and grave?"
A blunt line of questioning from Sotomayor: "We are now having deaths at an unprecedented amount ... Why shouldn't the federal government—which has already decided to give OSHA the power to regulate workplace safety—have a national rule that will protect workers?"
Kagan: "Who decides? Should it be the agency full of expert policymakers, politically accountable to the president? ... Or courts can decide. Courts are not politically accountable.... Courts have no epidemiological expertise. Why in the world would courts decide this question?"