Posted on 06/20/2019 7:05:32 AM PDT by SMGFan
The wise Latina joined Ruth Buzzy
And, in the final opinion of the day, we have PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, from Justice Breyer.
The Fourth Circuit is reversed and remanded.
Gorsuch writes that there should be no standing to sue for people who are offended at the presence of religious symbols. Thomas joins him.
We are back tomorrow at 10 am, by the way.
This had been a case about whether the Hobbs Act bars a defendant in a private enforcement act from challenging the FCC’s legal interpretation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. But the Court says that the extent to which a 2006 order from the FCC binds the lower courts may depend on the resolution of two preliminary sets of questions that were not aired before the court of appeals, so the Supreme Court sends it back for the court of appeals to resolve these issues.
I think he did last week too. Don’t remember the case but he’s been a little different this session.
Oops, didn’t see that question is already answered.
Yes, to be clear: More opinions tomorrow at 10 am. Hooray!
Anyone who still doubts that Gorsuch is on the side of the good guys needs to read his concurring opinion in American Legion. He’s as strong as Thomas.
More opinions tomorrow, and still likely to be more decision days next week in addition to Monday.
Soda-Manure. The wise Latina with diabetes.......lets hope she and Ruth go out in a pair!
Let us see the big picture after tomorrow maybe 4 cases and Monday & another day.
Can those idiots who pop up here demanding RBG proof of life be insta-zotted next time?
“As I see it,” Ginsburg says in her dissent, “when a cross is displayed on public property, the government may be presumed to endorse its religious content.”
So by her logic all those headstones at Arlington National Cemetery need to be ripped out.
Just retire or die. Either one is fine with me.
L
Trump should strike preemptively on this democrat threat! They keep bringing up the court packing idea? Fine. Let's start this summer! By October we can seat 6 more conservatives!
Let's call it, Fight for 15!
The libs will declare it unconstitutional and it will be "settled law".
No RBG, some non-Christians will presume Gov’t endorsement. Sometimes presume = assume
There is a case regarding tribal borders that might see Gorsuch pull away, but on the big cases remaining, census and gerrymandering, I’m most worried about Kavanaugh and Roberts. Gorsuch doesn’t seem to be influenced by pressure or negative news coverage from liberals that tries to scare justices with claims that the Court’s reputation will be tarnished if it does this or that. Roberts, on the other hand, is a weak weasel that does care about such things. And it’s early, but there are signs that Kavanaugh might be a little weak too. But we shall see as the days progress.
I view RBG the way I view people who keep a dog for sentimental reasons when it’s clearly suffering and beyond hope.
She may be their fatuous superheroine but she is actually a liability where liberal causes are concerned. In her considerable infirmity she is incapable of asking incisive questions, of persuading her colleagues. It’s common knowledge that clerks write many (even most) opinions therefore RBG is essentially there to flip thumb up or down upon request.
Her brand of anything-goes 60s ACLU liberalism is equally anachronistic ALTHOUGH she has gladly jumped onto the modern ACLU’s hypocritical, contradictory and militant penchant for iron-fisted government.
Media members love talking about her lace ‘dissent collar’ but would she need such an ornate item if she wasn’t dissenting ie losing so often?
In sum, keeping RBG in place as a broom against the ocean only serves to emphasize the speed with which the tide is rolling in.
My pledge: until I hear official word of her death I will make no comment about her whereabouts or her infrequent appearances.
What a silly, unrealistic and juvenile standard she attempts to establish.
Anyone driving down a road or a highway might see a church steeple. The church is not on public property but it’s just as visible. Distinction with out a difference for Ruth.
And then there’s the phrase public property. Clearly Ruth et al think that public property is GOVERNMENT property and therefore government gets absolute power.
Justice Ginsburg is reading from her dissent now
Does that mean she is THERE in person, she is in the public eye?
In case you didn’t see this - Peace Cross stays.
Lots of Stars of David in those cemeteries, too. Is Ginsburg against those, also?
I did see it, thank you for thinking of me!
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3758209/posts?page=5#5
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.