User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Five big upcoming Supreme Court decisions

  1. #11
    Original Ranter
    Points: 684,099, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    462902
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    198,518
    Points
    684,099
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    129,285
    Thanked 113,886x in 73,885 Posts
    Mentioned
    2414 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The ABA submitted an amicus brief in the Catholic case.

    Supreme Court rules for Catholic foster agency that refuses to place children with same-sex couples

    The ABA had submitted an amicus brief arguing that Catholic Social Services must adhere to the government’s nondiscrimination policies.
    So this is the Court's reasoning:

    Roberts said the case is not governed by the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which applies when laws burdening religion are neutral and generally applicable. Smith said such laws are reviewed using a lower level of scrutiny, making them likely to survive a free exercise challenge.In this case, Philadelphia’s policies are not neutral and not generally applicable, so the highest level of scrutiny applies, Roberts said.


    Roberts pointed to the city’s foster care contract, which gives the city “sole discretion” to grant an exemption to its policy of nondiscrimination. Because of the discretionary system, Philadelphia’s nondiscrimination requirement is not generally applicable, Roberts said.


    Since Smith doesn’t govern, Philadelphia’s policy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, Roberts said. And the city has no compelling reason why it has a particular interest in denying an exception to Catholic Social Services but not to others.
    So the case turned on which level of scrutiny applies to the case.

    Determining a Level of Scrutiny

    The court must determine whether it will be skeptical of government action, or be less nit-picky. That depends on the sensitivity of the issue. Certain liberties are more highly protected than others. Certain classes of people are more highly protected than others. These factors raise suspicion.


    The court will evaluate various factors that are likely to raise suspicion to determine the level of scrutiny.


    Spectrum

    You can consider the levels of scrutiny as existing on a spectrum: where Rational-Basis Review is at one end and Strict Scrutiny is at the other.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    MMC (06-18-2021)

  3. #12
    Original Ranter
    Points: 320,995, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    65481
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    80,988
    Points
    320,995
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    45,752
    Thanked 34,478x in 24,449 Posts
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Democrats along with the Lame Stream media focused on how BO care was a major win for Deviant Joe. While not wanting to talk about his losses. Especially the Unanimous Ruling where JoeyBs Deviants lost.



    Naturally JoeyB was given a few words to say about BO care. Then the AG of Texas spokeup and told The Deviants. He is just getting started in going after BO Care.
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  4. #13
    Points: 538,581, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 77.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    411117
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    167,447
    Points
    538,581
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,916
    Thanked 58,692x in 41,484 Posts
    Mentioned
    1809 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    ‘Alito was just pissed’: Trump’s Supreme Court breaks down along surprising lines

    ...Leading the charge from the right in both cases Thursday was Justice Samuel Alito, who penned caustic opinions taking his colleagues to task for issuing narrow rulings that seemed to him to be aimed at defusing political tensions rather than interpreting the law.

    “After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of post-argument cogitation, the Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state. Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed—as am I,” Alito wrote in the foster-care case, notwithstanding the Catholic charity’s unanimous victory.

    In the Obamacare dispute, Alito sarcastically accused the majority of repeatedly indulging in flights of legal sophistry to avoid the politically unpalatable step of striking down the landmark health care law.

    "No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats,” Alito wrote. "A penalty is a tax. The United States is a State. And 18 States who bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge. Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again. But I must respectfully dissent.”

    ...
    Virgil's Aeneid, Book VI: "Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito."

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (06-21-2021),MMC (06-18-2021),Peter1469 (06-18-2021)

  6. #14
    Points: 50,135, Level: 54
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 515
    Overall activity: 5.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    308280
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    17,585
    Points
    50,135
    Level
    54
    Thanks Given
    3,338
    Thanked 14,388x in 8,357 Posts
    Mentioned
    360 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    The ABA submitted an amicus brief in the Catholic case.

    Supreme Court rules for Catholic foster agency that refuses to place children with same-sex couples




    So this is the Court's reasoning:



    So the case turned on which level of scrutiny applies to the case.
    My reading of the decision is that the clause in the foster care contract that granted the city the power to make exemptions to its nondiscrimination policy is ultimately what doomed the city's case. Roberts' speculation that other contracted groups might have been granted exemptions from the policy would really only be pertinent if any other groups actually had been, or even if any had attempted to receive an exemption.
    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

    "If you get hurt, hurt 'em back. If you get killed...walk it off." - Captain America in Captain America: Civil War


  7. #15
    Points: 538,581, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 77.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    411117
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    167,447
    Points
    538,581
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,916
    Thanked 58,692x in 41,484 Posts
    Mentioned
    1809 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Supreme Court rules against NCAA caps on student-athlete education-related gifts and benefits

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the NCAA in a long-running dispute over a cap on education-related gifts and benefits that schools may provide student-athletes.

    The unanimous decision, upholding lower court rulings, says the cap on a relatively narrow list of education-related benefits -- such as scholarships for graduate school, computers, musical instruments, and tutoring expenses -- violates federal anti-trust law and must be lifted....
    Virgil's Aeneid, Book VI: "Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito."

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts