Supreme Court Decisions for Friday, June 27th

23,176 Views | 203 Replies | Last: 7 mo ago by aggiehawg
FireAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 1:36p, 6/27/25
nortex97 said:

Has one Justice ever publicly beaten down another Justice like that in the history of SCOTUS?

I can't seem to think of another instance that was so raw and pointed than what ACB wrote there…
Reply Quote
FireAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to One Louder • 1:37p, 6/27/25
One Louder said:
Just think how mad Jackson will be when someone explains ACB's insults to her.

Might require colorful drawings to illustrate the big words…
Reply Quote
Ag4life80
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:38p, 6/27/25
Damn, a whole lotta winning this week
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 1:40p, 6/27/25
Roberts got saucy with Sotomayor over her position that Korematsu was still good law but other than that, no I don't remember a b**** slap down like this one from ACB.
Reply Quote
1 edit
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 1:40p, 6/27/25
No, and more importantly it wasn't just one or two, but six who signed onto that thrashing.

I think KBJ must be just as/more obnoxious in chambers as in open court. It's likely all 8 of her peers are just sick of hearing her talk.
Reply Quote
G Martin 87
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 1:57p, 6/27/25
nortex97 said:
No, and more importantly it wasn't just one or two, but six who signed onto that thrashing.

I think KBJ must be just as/more obnoxious in chambers as in open court. It's likely all 8 of her peers are just sick of hearing her talk.
That's one of the most ironically delicious things about DEI. It ensures that unqualified people will not get any respect from their colleagues.
Reply Quote
DANManman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMCane • 1:58p, 6/27/25
I wouldn't want the judicial activism working in favor of either party. A judge I had no hand in bringing to office shouldn't have any authority over the laws where I live, no matter who's party he's representing.

This is a return to reason in general, in line with the Constitution (both of which incidentally favor conservative policy).
Jesus saves
Reply Quote
TRM
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 1:59p, 6/27/25
Remember there was some back in forth with Jackson in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida.

Gorsuch
Quote:
Failing all else, Ms. Stanley and the dissent ask us to look beyond text and precedent. Brief for Petitioner 29, 47; post, at 18 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). Finding "pure textualism" insufficiently pliable to secure the result they seek, they invoke the statute's "primary purpose" and "legislative history." Post, at 1, 15, 22. As they see it, the ADA's goal of eradicating disability-based discrimination would be best served by a decision extending Title I's protections beyond those who hold or seek a job to retirees.
Jackson
Quote:
The majority's contention that I reject "'pure textualism' [a]s insufficiently pliable to secure the result seek," ante, at 10, stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And, indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A methodology that includes consideration of Congress's aims does exactly that and no more. By contrast, pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences. By "finding" answers in ambiguous text, and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as "textual" inevitabilities. So, really, far from being "insufficiently pliable," I think pure textualism is incessantly malleablethat's its primary problemand, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.
Reply Quote
DANManman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 2:11p, 6/27/25
Feels bad to think the SC is not immune to black fatigue.

At least Thomas is still repping us well. Stays quiet, too!
Jesus saves
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:20p, 6/27/25

Epic melts, and of course, race cards played.
"And of course, they have dealt a death blow to the rule of law." (Her closing comment, Judge Boasberg could not be reached for his thoughts).
Reply Quote
TyHolden
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:25p, 6/27/25
Reply Quote
outofstateaggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:48p, 6/27/25
Reply Quote
Rockdoc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to outofstateaggie • 2:52p, 6/27/25
outofstateaggie said:

I guess the more lies you tell, the worse your eyesight gets.
Reply Quote
deddog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 3:10p, 6/27/25
will25u said:
So we have a 2nd Supreme Court nitwit who rules on emotion instead of the law.
Reply Quote
DBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fightin_Aggie • 3:11p, 6/27/25
Fightin_Aggie said:

At some point. All they decided on here was that national injunctions were not legal
Should national injunctions be legal?
Reply Quote
1 edit
Claude!
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DBird • 3:14p, 6/27/25
DBird said:
Fightin_Aggie said:

At some point. All they decided on here was that national injunctions were not legal
Should national injunctions be legal?


If the Supreme Court issues them, as their jurisdiction is national.
Reply Quote
deddog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 3:18p, 6/27/25
nortex97 said:
From shipwrecked:
Quote:
The FACT that six Justices were OK with signing onto an opinion where Justice Barrett took a personal shot at Justice Jackson is a VERY STRONG indication that Jackson has alienated her colleagues and there is a growing lack of respect for her work.

Justices circulate Memos among with their legal views on certain cases in order to bring others around to their thinking.

Given what she has written in her dissent, imagine the memos that Jackson must have sent around in this case.

Barrett aptly boils it down to a single point -- Jackson would elevate the primacy of single district judges about the Executive because they are "the court" in the separation of powers.
She loves hearing herself talk - classic case of an empty vessel making the most noise. Ketanji Brown is an embarrassment and of course way out of her league.
Reply Quote
DBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Claude! • 3:22p, 6/27/25
Claude! said:
DBird said:
Fightin_Aggie said:

At some point. All they decided on here was that national injunctions were not legal
Should national injunctions be legal?


If the Supreme Court issues them, as their jurisdiction is national.
What if the President signed an executive order that everyone needs to provide ID before voting. Only the Supreme Court can tell him to hold up while they decide its constitutionality?
Reply Quote
Claude!
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DBird • 3:57p, 6/27/25
DBird said:
Claude! said:
DBird said:
Fightin_Aggie said:

At some point. All they decided on here was that national injunctions were not legal
Should national injunctions be legal?


If the Supreme Court issues them, as their jurisdiction is national.
What if the President signed an executive order that everyone needs to provide ID before voting. Only the Supreme Court can tell him to hold up while they decide its constitutionality?
Yes. A district court could stay the law for the parties involved and a circuit court could stay the law for their circuit, because that is those courts' jurisdiction. Those stays could be appealed up the chain to the Supreme Court, which could issue a stay that is nationwide. Parties can also seek a direct hearing from the Supreme Court via request for writ of certiorari.
Reply Quote
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 4:08p, 6/27/25
FireAg said:
One Louder said:
Just think how mad Jackson will be when someone explains ACB's insults to her.

Might require colorful drawings to illustrate the big words…
maybe she should be writing her opinions on a circle of paper with a safety pencil.

Reply Quote
Teslag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:09p, 6/27/25
At the end of the day the liberal district judges brought this on themselves. They abused their power to essentially shut down the voice of the people and their election. It was never designed to be that way.
Reply Quote
RAB87
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:19p, 6/27/25
Huge day for the good guys!
Reply Quote
aTm2004
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 4:36p, 6/27/25
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
Ryan the Temp said:
A is A said:
Rapier108 said:
After sitting on the bench for over an hour, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton has been called up.

6-3 by Justice Thomas

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent.

Quote:
The court upholds Texas's age-verification law for porn sites.
would be curious on the dissenting opinions.
I'm about 3 pages in and Kagan basically says the statute interferes too much with the right of adults to access 1A protected content and has a chilling effect. And there's this, which was mentioned earlier in this thread, iirc:
Quote:
... It is not, contra the majority, like having to flash ID to enter a club. See ante, at 1415. It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habitsrespecting speech many find repulsiveto a website operator, and then to . . . who knows? The operator might sell the information; the operator might be hacked or subpoenaed. We recognized the problem in a case involving sexual material on cable TV: Similar demands, we decided, would "restrict viewing by subscribers who fear for their reputations should the operator, advertently or inadvertently, disclose the list of those who wish to watch the 'patently offensive' channel."


I'll always lean towards supporting the First but the other argument is very valid. It doesn't mean I want kids accessing pornography at all by siding with 1A argument or that I'm against the 1A by putting barriers in place to prevent access.
I don't want my kids accessing that stuff at their age, but that should be for me to control and not the government. Also, there are countless other ways to find it that doesn't have the verifications or easy ways to bypass it. Kids know a lot more about technology than we tend to realize.

As for adults, what they choose to watch or partake in in the privacy of their private life is their choice and none of my or the government's business, and having to verify stuff like this is only the tip of the iceberg, IMO. I spend a lot of time read gun boards and looking at sites like Primary Arms, and I'm constantly getting pop ups confirming I'm over 18 (21 on some). I can see some politician trying to implement the same thing as adult content for sites like that, because of...THE CHILDREN!! Sit down, Mrs. Lovejoy.
Reply Quote
P.H. Dexippus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 45-70Ag • 5:36p, 6/27/25
45-70Ag said:
Never, while it still serves their purposes. See Joe Biden mental acuity.
Reply Quote
Danny Vermin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:41p, 6/27/25
Kagan is an absolute hypocrite. Vince C played a clip of her crying about the exact same thing in 22 when a Federal Judge did the same thing to whoever was controlling Bidens auto-pen. Would have been funny if ACB played that clip.
Reply Quote
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:13p, 6/27/25
This idiot Tarlov has no clue.

“ How you fellas doin? We about to have us a little screw party in this red Prius over here if you wanna join us.”
Reply Quote
txags92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rockdoc • 9:30p, 6/27/25
Rockdoc said:
outofstateaggie said:

I guess the more lies you tell, the worse your eyesight gets.
Dems need to print the daily talking points in larger font. Too much squinting by the media reading their lines.
Reply Quote
Maroon Dawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:37p, 6/27/25
A judge shopped partisan hack in Hawaii should not have power over the entire nation. Full stop.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:44p, 6/27/25
The Dems on X are saying this changes nothing. They can simply do class action suits to get their injunctions?! Can they?
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:50p, 6/27/25
Love me some Stephen Miller.

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:13p, 6/27/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:19p, 6/27/25
They look so... So... Heartbroken.

Reply Quote
Secolobo
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:36p, 6/27/25
Reply Quote
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aTm2004 • 10:38p, 6/27/25
aTm2004 said:
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
Ryan the Temp said:
A is A said:
Rapier108 said:
After sitting on the bench for over an hour, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton has been called up.

6-3 by Justice Thomas

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent.

Quote:
The court upholds Texas's age-verification law for porn sites.
would be curious on the dissenting opinions.
I'm about 3 pages in and Kagan basically says the statute interferes too much with the right of adults to access 1A protected content and has a chilling effect. And there's this, which was mentioned earlier in this thread, iirc:
Quote:
... It is not, contra the majority, like having to flash ID to enter a club. See ante, at 1415. It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habitsrespecting speech many find repulsiveto a website operator, and then to . . . who knows? The operator might sell the information; the operator might be hacked or subpoenaed. We recognized the problem in a case involving sexual material on cable TV: Similar demands, we decided, would "restrict viewing by subscribers who fear for their reputations should the operator, advertently or inadvertently, disclose the list of those who wish to watch the 'patently offensive' channel."


I'll always lean towards supporting the First but the other argument is very valid. It doesn't mean I want kids accessing pornography at all by siding with 1A argument or that I'm against the 1A by putting barriers in place to prevent access.
I don't want my kids accessing that stuff at their age, but that should be for me to control and not the government. Also, there are countless other ways to find it that doesn't have the verifications or easy ways to bypass it. Kids know a lot more about technology than we tend to realize.

As for adults, what they choose to watch or partake in in the privacy of their private life is their choice and none of my or the government's business, and having to verify stuff like this is only the tip of the iceberg, IMO. I spend a lot of time read gun boards and looking at sites like Primary Arms, and I'm constantly getting pop ups confirming I'm over 18 (21 on some). I can see some politician trying to implement the same thing as adult content for sites like that, because of...THE CHILDREN!! Sit down, Mrs. Lovejoy.


I can't disagree with anything you wrote.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Reply Quote
TRM
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:55p, 6/27/25
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.