SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Fiye]

Sounds like we need another SCOTUS hearing to redefine it.

[Andalusian girls]

please point to the analogous clause granting private organizations the aforementioned right

please don't bring in and then double down on such woefully weak analogies

[Fiye]

As gorsuch is quite proving he doesn't have to make any arguments or ask any questions.

Just shut up and vote.

[archibaldcrane]

The union will still be speaking for the plaintiff whether he pays in or not. If not paying doesn't sever his ties to the union's collective bargaining process altogether (it doesn't), then the argument that his money = their speech is pretty fucking weak.

[archibaldcrane]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/98...120055301?s=19

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Tyche]

While this is up here, Sonia Sotomayor fell at home and broke her shoulder. Looks like it'll be non-surgical. Shouldn't miss bench time.

[Tyrath]

Broken clock

[Gryffes]

7-2 bby.

[Talint]

Supreme Court sides with employers in class action arbitration cases

In a victory for employers and the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on Monday said that employers could block employees from banding together as a class to fight legal disputes in employment arbitration agreements.

Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority, his first major opinion since joining the court last spring and a demonstration of how the Senate Republicans' move to keep liberal nominee Merrick Garland from being confirmed in 2016 has helped cement a conservative court.

[Byrthnoth]

But did you hear about how Hillary is so bad that I am not even going to vote this year Bernie 2020?

[Talint]

Don't look at me. I voted for her. Hashtag still with her hashtag resistance.

[6souls]

Police Need Warrant to Search Area Around Home

In other words, police can't just look on property or peek in windows, see something they think is illegal and start searching without a warrant.

The case began when an orange and black motorcycle twice evaded police in Virginia. After some investigation, Albemarle County police were able to locate where the driver, Ryan Collins, lived. Later, Officer David Rhodes saw a similar motorcycle under a tarp outside a private home.

When Collins arrived at the home, he was arrested and charged with receiving stolen property and convicted.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reversed that decision. Writing for the court majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the private area around a house, known as the curtilage, is part of the home itself and cannot be searched without a warrant. The court rejected the police's contention that the motorcycle was like an automobile, which the court has long ruled can be searched without a warrant if an officer sees something in plain sight.

Sotomayor noted that the court has always said that the power to search an automobile does not extend to the area around the house. The majority noted that police must have a warrant to search a suspect's home and to enter the curtilage.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/0...ea-around-home

SCOTUS Rejects Planned Parenthood's Appeal Against Arkansas' Abortion Bill, Sent Back to the Lower Courts
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/0...aw-in-arkansas

[Zealot]

Oh shit, taking away curtilage is huge.

[Mertron]

the supreme court has ruled against gay cakes, 7-2

[Day]

even though i dont agree with the christian bakers opinons, this is still a good ruling imo

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/u...ay-couple.html

[Xno Kappa]

I think it’s a good ruling if I’m understanding the written opinion correctly. Otherwise it’s going to be clickbaited into a crusade against the gays.

[Zealot]

From the opinion it sounds like the Supremes ruled against the findings of Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, not specifically against making people serve gays even if they don't want to. Leaves the door open for other cases in different contexts, this same cake shop could even be sued again if it happens to them a second time.

[Daydreamer]

If I'm reading this right - he was ok to turn them down not because the couple was gay but because the cake being made was pushing gay rights which in turn then violated his religious freedom? I'm a little behind on the actual details of this case and there's a lot of info to sift through online.

Edit: I'm seeing now that the ruling wasn't really about the cake, but that the baker wasn't treated fairly by the first court ruling. That makes much more sense.

[Talint]

And yet

[Dimmauk]

So since this Baker was considered an artist, you can't tell him how to make art. LOL

Can we now not serve interracial couples, muslims, trump supporters, etc..?