The Supreme Court discussion thread
So it now seems absolutely certain that the court will end up hearing an abortion related case sometime in the future. How should they adjudicate these new laws?
FWIW, I've always thought that the decision in Roe is worth reading, because it makes an interesting legal and philosophical argument in support of the compromise the justices reached, attempting to balance the the constitutional "right to privacy" which entails women's right to self-determination and the "legitimate state interest" in regulating abortion, e.g.
The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus.... As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.
This balancing of interests leads them to make the viability of the fetus an inflection point with regard to when the state may legitimately assert an interest in requiring that the life of the fetus be protected.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Does the compromise outlined in Roe still make sense?
I also think there's probably room for a discussion about the role of the courts more generally, here, and particularly the way they are becoming politicized simply because the appointment process is so heavily politicized, i.e. the refusal to hold a vote on Merrick Garland, the Kavanaugh hearings, etc. But then one of the criticisms of Roe itself is that the compromise they reached might have been more appropriately reached via a legislative process, rather than by the courts. I've always thought that would have been optimal, but then I would not have traded the "optimal" legislative process for abortion being illegal the last 50 years either. So I am a supporter of Roe.
Musk spent at least 15 million on the election and Crawford still won.
The reason the injunctions have been happening so much recently is because Trump has been issuing so many EOs, including a lot which clearly exceed his authority.
Luciom, you said yourself that Trump was planning to push the limits of executive authority. You shouldn't be surprised when there is a push back.
He shouldn't be allowed to implement things which are very likely to be ruled unconstitutional but just take awhile to get through the courts.
Musk spent at least 15 million on the election and Crawford still won.
Who is supposed to handle the enforcement of rules against buying votes?
Can someone in Minnesota go after Musk?
there are rules against buying votes?
Who is supposed to handle the enforcement of rules against buying votes?
Can someone in Minnesota go after Musk?
Someone in the court system there tried to sue... The state AG maybe?
I guess it didn't stop him.
I think the PAC is doing a bit of a bait and switch, and is probably why its "legal", where they aren't actually randomly selecting people. They are either using pre-selected people or selecting people who sign based on a story. It always seems to come out that the "winner" is either not receiving money or is a team members son or whatever.
Assuming that is the case no clue how they can false advertise but whatever. I'm sure the guy behind "appreciating robotaxis within the next year" (2019) has figured out a loophole
Yes, both in federal law and in Wisconsin state law. (I mistakenly referred to Minnesota earlier).
Yes, both in federal law and in Wisconsin state law. (I mistakenly referred to Minnesota earlier).
Musk tried something similar already in october 24 and Biden DOJ refused to press charges.
But in that case it was construed as a raffle among signatories of a theoretical non partisan petition to uphold the 1a and the 2a and who were registered as voters in a swing state.
States for a while appeared to have evaluated the angle of an unregulated giveway (so consumer fraud potentially) but given participation was completly free they didn't pursue that.
This time i am pretty sure Wisconsin AG can try under Wisconsin law , while i don't think Bondi will do anything at the federal level obviously.
When i will be able to i will source you the data on nationwide applicable TROs to presumtpive classes historically, and you will see the vast majority of them had been issues by judges appointed by democrats presidents in the last 10 years, like a lot more than half the total since your country exists.
Which cases do you have in mind for ex under the Biden admin of district court level TROs applying nationwide to a presumptive class?
You smarter than this, you know the topic is specifically one o
How many times have I told you that this has absolutely nothing to do with class actions, which are a different thing entirely.
If you want examples, just google "Obama administration enjoined" or "Biden administration enjoined."
Yes, it is happening more often now. That's because Trump is utterly indifferent to whether his actions can withstand legal scrutiny. On some level, I think he views these situations as a win-win because every adverse legal decision gives him an opportunity to whip up anger at the judiciary. And you are lapping it up, whether you realize it or not.
How many times have I told you that this has absolutely nothing to do with class actions, which are a different thing entirely.
If you want examples, just google "Obama administration enjoined" or "Biden administration enjoined."
Yes, it is happening more often now. That's because Trump is utterly indifferent to whether his actions can withstand legal scrutiny. On some level, I think he views these situations as a win-win because every adverse legal decision gives him an opportunity to whip up a
But that's what the law proposal refers to as well. It has to do with putative classes or whatever the name is for extending the order to someone who is not the plaintiff.
If a state sues Biden for the student debt relief EO and the court finds standing it can order that relief to end for all, i can see that.
If 5 people being deported sue because they think they shoulnd't be, the judge should only be able to order them not to be deported, and no one else. Then sure that's decision will become case law for other judges considerations but why the automatism , the extension to other people being deported, even if in similar circumstances, if they haven't sued as members of a class?
What's the name for the idea that the judge can order stuff that applies to people other than the plaintiffs, as a TRO?
But that's what the law proposal refers to as well. It has to do with putative classes or whatever the name is for extending the order to someone who is not the plaintiff.
If a state sues Biden for the student debt relief EO and the court finds standing it can order that relief to end for all, i can see that.
If 5 people being deported sue because they think they shoulnd't be, the judge should only be able to order them not to be deported, and no one else. Then sure that's decision will become cas
Grassley is seeking to require class certification in cases seeking nationwide injunctions. That would be a change in law, and a bad one. If an EO violates the law on its face, plaintiffs shouldn't be required to meet the commonality and predominance requirements of a class action in order to get relief.
It most certainly is not required under existing law, which is why Grassley is seeking to change the law.
If an order violated the First Amendment on its face, would you require people to meet the standards for a class action in order to avoid being muzzled?
-Requires parties seeking universal relief against the government to use the class action process to show that class-wide relief is proper
/
The law i talked about in post 3541 to which you replied, "Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025" sponsored by Grassley
another beating for the fifth circuit appeal court which keeps making determinations that I fully agree with in spirit but that lack legal defensibility enough that SCOTUS has to strike them down
this time on the brutale, unconstitutional FDA war on vaping.
5th circuit really has to step up the game and write better decisions, and the people forum shopping to get 5th circuit appeal decisions have to improve as well, get far better amicus briefs and so on.
As someone who has always absolutely detested cigarette smoke, I think the fight against vaping is completely misguided. It's not nearly as bad for you as smoking tobacco, and I have had someone sit next to me at the poker table vaping and it didn't even bother me a bit. I understand the idea is that vaping is particularly attractive to children, but who cares? Children used to smoke actual cigarettes which was much worse for them.
