Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
The court rules 6-3 in favor of the government, with Roberts delivering the opinion joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Scalia authored a dissent joined by Thomas and Alito.
Thoughts forum?
The BBC article shoehorned a weird paragraph about the racial and gender makeup of the court into the article imo. The 6-3 ruling surprised me slightly, I was expecting a 5-4 with Kennedy being the swing vote. Maybe Roberts, after saving the law in the earlier 5-4 vote didn't want to be seen as undoing that decision on a technicality? I dunno.
The Cat !8kwgFELINE joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later[^][v]#572,451
Good. This American terror and hatred of helping the poor needs to end. purrrrr
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^][v]#572,452
Also there is a gay marriage ruling coming potentially tomorrow or Monday. My guess is Monday since the court likes being the center of attention and they get to be talked about all week if they do it Monday.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#572,454
Is there a weed ruling this term? I can't remember.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) triple-posted this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#572,460
Scalia apparently called it "SCOTUSCare", and used the phrases " jiggery-pokery" and "pure applesauce" to describe the majority opinion. Truly one of the great legal writers of our time.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 21 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^][v]#572,465
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
LOL Scalia. I don't wish him any ill will, but I won't be terribly sad when he goes.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^][v]#572,467
@previous (D)
I will! His dissents are always really entertaining, and clearly reasoned, albeit not usually correct (in my opinion). No one else on the court writes with a similar passion.
RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#572,475
@572,452 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I thought they already ruled on that? Or is this in response to some sort of appeal?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#572,476
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb !!iNo3FkiZx)
There was an older case that attacked the law on different grounds. That one had to do with the power to tax iirc. This one is about the language of the law limiting where the government can offer subsidies.
Xiaoqing Yan joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#572,516
@572,465 (D)
Scalia will be near the front of the line when the woodchipper comes out.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#572,540
Tomorrow is June 26, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges has yet to be decided. Could that mean that tomorrow, gay marriage is legalized (or one step closer to being legalized) federally??? This is an exciting time to be alive!