SCOTUS Megathread: Opinions in Rimini St., Loos, 4th Estate released Monday 3/4

[krazen1211]

Even if Texas was force to draw new maps, it would almost certainly just affect the 2020 election, and the Republicans almost certainly would've controlled the process.   Not that big of a deal really. 

The Democrat party's scheme was to use the antiquated Voting Rights Act section 3 against the great state of Texas, turning it back into a second class state.

Count your blessings I suppose. Were that to happen I suspect the Supreme Court would then toss that section of the Voting Rights Act into the garbage.

[MarkD]

The idea that every justice on the court is legally driven instead of ideologically (or otherwise) driven is a farce. Most people on the court are just as interested in using their position as a cudgel to enforce their ideologies as any other person (yes, this includes Kagan, RBG, etc.). Alito is as guilty of this as any other and nobody should be surprised by it -- he is as interested in cementing Republican control of state legislatures as Scott Walker or Kris Kobach is, he just has a different set of powers to do so.

There is not one current Justice, nor any in the last 47 years, who is actually objective. We have had some objective Justices during the 20th Century, like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Benjamin Cardozo, Felix Frankfurter, and Hugo Black. Since Black retired in 1971, all Justices have been ideologues -- liberal, conservative, and moderate. Yes, moderate Justices can be and have been driven to base their decision on their ideologies too.

What else is the Supreme Court supposed to be if not the nine most highly objective interpreters of law that we can find in the country? If you agree with that, let your party's nominee for President know that you feel that way.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Kennedy is so hard to predict from year-to-year.  Historically, people call him a moderate conservative with libertarian tenancies, but he seems to change from year to year.  He was heavily siding with the liberals the last few years, but this year, he has sided with the conservatives in every 5-4 case with neat ideological alignments.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Kennedy is so hard to predict from year-to-year.  Historically, people call him a moderate conservative with libertarian tenancies, but he seems to change from year to year.  He was heavily siding with the liberals the last few years, but this year, he has sided with the conservatives in every 5-4 case with neat ideological alignments.

Kennedy is much more consistent than he is given credit for, actually. He is conservative on some legal issues, liberal on others (mainly social issues).

Whether he seems to be "liberal" or "conservative" from year to year depends on what types of high profile cases SCOTUS hears each year.

[Progressive Pessimist]

So Kennedy really is useless at everything except LGBT issues. Great to know.

That's always what I thought. The people who were celebrating his decision after the same-sex marriage decision were being very premature. That said, I will take Kennedy over another another Neil Gorsuch being nominated in his place, even if the difference is negligible. 

[libertpaulian]

Justice Thomas writes the NIFLA v. Becerra opinion.  According to SCOTUS Blog's summary of this case: "This case is a First Amendment challenge to a California law that imposes two different sets of requirements on crisis pregnancy centers – non-profits, often affiliated with Christian groups, that oppose abortion. First, it requires centers that are licensed to provide medical services to inform their patients that free or low-cost abortions are available. Second, it requires centers that are not licensed to provide medical services to include in their advertisements disclaimers to make clear that their services do not include medical help."

The court reverses both on notice requirements.  Court holds that the challengers are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the FACT Act violates the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case goes back for further proceedings.

[BudgieForce]

Multiple 5-4 decisions. Elections have consequences.

[Devout Centrist]

...And Trump v. Hawaii was reversed and remanded. 5-4; Roberts writes opinion of the Court. Not good!

[Gass3268]

Justice Thomas writes the NIFLA v. Becerra opinion.  According to SCOTUS Blog's summary of this case: "This case is a First Amendment challenge to a California law that imposes two different sets of requirements on crisis pregnancy centers – non-profits, often affiliated with Christian groups, that oppose abortion. First, it requires centers that are licensed to provide medical services to inform their patients that free or low-cost abortions are available. Second, it requires centers that are not licensed to provide medical services to include in their advertisements disclaimers to make clear that their services do not include medical help."

The court reverses both on notice requirements.  Court holds that the challengers are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the FACT Act violates the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case goes back for further proceedings.

This means that people should sue states that have require abortion providers to tell lies to their patients as it would go against their 1st Amendment rights.

[libertpaulian]

Travel ban upheld.  5-4.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Justice Thomas writes the NIFLA v. Becerra opinion.  According to SCOTUS Blog's summary of this case: "This case is a First Amendment challenge to a California law that imposes two different sets of requirements on crisis pregnancy centers – non-profits, often affiliated with Christian groups, that oppose abortion. First, it requires centers that are licensed to provide medical services to inform their patients that free or low-cost abortions are available. Second, it requires centers that are not licensed to provide medical services to include in their advertisements disclaimers to make clear that their services do not include medical help."

The court reverses both on notice requirements.  Court holds that the challengers are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the FACT Act violates the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case goes back for further proceedings.

Hooray for free speech!!!

[AtorBoltox]

Hopefully liberals who think Kennedy is an ally have learnt some lessons this week

[Skunk]

Republicans steal the court and uphold terrible Republican policy, color me shocked.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Republicans steal the court and uphold terrible Republican policy, color me shocked.

lol

[AtorBoltox]

The Roberts court really makes very little effort to disguise its blatant partisanship

[BudgieForce]

From a law standpoint, I'm surprised the Travel ban wasn't upheld by a larger margin.

[Alabama_Indy10]

From a law standpoint, I'm surprised the Travel ban wasn't upheld by a larger margin.

[Torie]

Justice Alito wrote:
“In redistricting cases, the ‘good faith of [the] state legislature must be presumed.'”  

That's frustrating.

Edit: Wont be the end for redistricting cases, but we'll probably have to wait again till the 2020 census.

Did he really say that?

If so, that might just be the dumbest thing this session, even past Roberts' idiotic "intelligent man on the street" excuse during Whitford. State legislatures have proven time after time after time that they cannot be trusted. They abuse their power every f'ing chance they get with redistricting. It is very rare that a legislature doesn't try to play games even when ordered by a court to redraw their maps, and even when it is divided between two party, you can still bet that they will probably agree to some sort of bipartisan gerrymandering. It's hard to think of a time where the party in control of a legislature passed on a chance to gerrymander, or abided by a court ruling to redraw their maps in good faith.

I just don't see how Alito, a person who went to Yale and Princeton, could be so dumb and naive as to say that the legislatures are acting in good faith with redistricting. I'm sorry, but all the records we have indicate that any rational, objective person should never trust a legislature with drawing legislative/Congressional maps. EVER.

Even if Texas was force to draw new maps, it would almost certainly just affect the 2020 election, and the Republicans almost certainly would've controlled the process.   Not that big of a deal really.  

Given that Democrats are already competitive in some Texas districts, maybe it's better than the legislature doesn't redraw the Congressional map, otherwise they may try to shore up certain competitive districts. I don't trust them not to nor the court to defend against it - not after North Carolina took the opportunity to re-gerrymander some districts even in violation of its own constitution, only for the federal court to punt it to state court and for the state court not to halt it in time, despite the fact that they brazenly did it at the same time as when they redrew the map under court order.

Virginia, all the language means to which you exception (regarding  a presumption of good faith by the legislature), is that the burden of proof is on the party challenging the map to show a legal violation. That seems entirely reasonable, and well, normal, to me as to where the burden of proof typically lies. In the decision is very hard to understand, and it a procedural maze, but my tentative reaction is that it really does not stand for much that is of interest, or provides further guidance as to how to draw legal maps.

[BudgieForce]

From a law standpoint, I'm surprised the Travel ban wasn't upheld by a larger margin.

Reading the dissent, it boils down to "Trump has an animus towards Muslims." Which I get, and agree with. But I was under the impression the supreme court didn't operate like that.

[KingSweden]

I’m surprised NIFLA was 5-4. From orals it sounded like a substantial majority was ready to overrule and remand

[BudgieForce]

In the Travel ban case, Kennedy goes out of his way to reprimand Trump. Not that it matters.

https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/1011622250469122048

[Devout Centrist]

Just retire already, Tony

[Pandaguineapig]

Gorsuch has been a much better supreme court justice than the fake moderate Garland would have been. It's good to have a justice who doesn't make crap up as he goes on

[BudgieForce]

Just retire already, Tony

I'd rather one possible(and I use that term lightly) swing vote than none at all. While these last couple decisions are not great, Kennedy would more than likely uphold Roe vs Wade and Gay rights, something a second Gorcsuch would have no problem scrapping.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I wish Obama had chosen an unabashed progressive black woman instead of a boring, centrist milquetoast white man. Sorry, but the Supreme Court seat being stolen from a liberal black woman would have mobilized the base to come out for Hillary.