- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS Opinion Release Day - July 1 (Trump Immunity, NetChoice, Corner Post)
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:06 am to geauxtigers87
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:06 am to geauxtigers87
She is all emotion, no substance.
0
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:07 am to DarthRebel
quote:
51
Justice Jackson calls the "flawed reasoning and far-reaching results of the Court's ruling in this case" "staggering."
53
She writes that "there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face."
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:12 am to geauxtigers87
quote:
She writes that "there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face."
don't know how she can find that when it sets a very clear limitation... the clock starts the moment the regulatory agency harms the business
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:12 am to geauxtigers87
quote:
Justice Jackson in her conclusion: "At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court's holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government."
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:13 am to rt3
quote:
Justice Jackson in her conclusion: "At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court's holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government."
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:14 am to geauxtigers87
She turns out to be a big government fan. Who knew?
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:14 am to DarthRebel
quote:
The court holds that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge an agency action first comes into being when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
This could actually have more long-term impact than reversing Chevron
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This could actually have more long-term impact than reversing Chevron
Yup. Federal agencies are about to need to lawyer up even more. FOREVER!!!
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:16 am to DarthRebel
quote:
Yup. Federal agencies are about to need to lawyer up even more. FOREVER!!!
our taxes about to go up to pay all these legal fees
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:17 am to DarthRebel
This is a huge step in bringing the Federal government under more control of the people. Will make the judicial even more important to control though.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:17 am to DarthRebel
quote:congress could also just legislate.
Federal agencies are about to need to lawyer up even more. FOREVER!!!
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:18 am to Indefatigable
Good luck with that
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:18 am to rt3
quote:
our taxes about to go up to pay all these legal fees
If your Congress had the nads, they would make them use their existing budgets. Which would mean letting go of staff
We know that will not happen
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:18 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
congress could also just legislate.
quote:
Good luck with that
who wants to do all that?
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:19 am to momentoftruth87
Yeah they’re gonna need to learn how to legislate.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:19 am to dkreller
NetChoice coming up probably now
Kagan has NetChoice
Kagan has NetChoice
quote:
There are no dissenting opinions, although some concurring in parts and concurring in the judgment.
quote:
K AGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which R OBERTS , C. J.,
and SOTOMAYOR, K AVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined in full, and in
which JACKSON, J., joined as to Parts I, II and III–A. BARRETT , J., filed a
concurring opinion. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment. THOMAS , J., filed an opinion concurring in
the judgment. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in
which THOMAS and G ORSUCH, JJ., joined.
This post was edited on 7/1/24 at 9:26 am
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:20 am to dkreller
they really slow rolling today's releases... it typically starts at 9 AM and a new one comes out every 10 minutes
it's been like 20 and still haven't gotten the 2nd one yet
it's been like 20 and still haven't gotten the 2nd one yet
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:22 am to DarthRebel
quote:
She writes that "there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face."
That's a bad thing?
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:25 am to Bard
so what does vacating the judgments in the NetChoice cases mean?
Posted on 7/1/24 at 9:27 am to rt3
quote:
so what does vacating the judgments in the NetChoice cases mean?
5th circuit got overturned
LINK
quote:
On Sept. 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down a long-awaited ruling in NetChoice v. Paxton, upholding the constitutionality of a Texas law that greatly restricts the ability of large social media platforms to moderate content and imposes certain transparency requirements. NetChoice, a trade association, challenged the legislation on First Amendment grounds.
The Fifth Circuit had previously stayed a preliminary injunction against the law issued by a district court, only for the Supreme Court to vacate the stay. In its ruling today finding the legislation constitutional, the appeals court found a key provision limiting content moderation practices to be acceptable under the First Amendment because it "does not chill speech; instead, it chills censorship."
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News