- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
SCOTUS Watch: Tuesday
Posted on 6/27/23 at 8:21 am
Posted on 6/27/23 at 8:21 am
Another day for opinions. We have 10 more cases to decide between now and June 30. Two sets of two are likely to be combined so we are really looking at 8, including these five that are likely to have the biggest impact for most Americans:
Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (affirmative action)
Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown (student loan forgiveness)
Groff v. DeJoy (religious accommodations in employment)
303 Creative v. Elenis (Build that website, bigot!)
Moore v. Harper (North Carolina congressional map - interestingly, you probably want the GOP to lose this one. A GOP win would help in NC, but would allow California to redraw its congressional districts as well)
Note: I have a meeting at 9 am as these opinions are being released, I may not be able to update as normal.
As always, SCOTUS Blog's livestream is awesome: LINK
Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (affirmative action)
Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown (student loan forgiveness)
Groff v. DeJoy (religious accommodations in employment)
303 Creative v. Elenis (Build that website, bigot!)
Moore v. Harper (North Carolina congressional map - interestingly, you probably want the GOP to lose this one. A GOP win would help in NC, but would allow California to redraw its congressional districts as well)
Note: I have a meeting at 9 am as these opinions are being released, I may not be able to update as normal.
As always, SCOTUS Blog's livestream is awesome: LINK
This post was edited on 6/27/23 at 8:24 am
7
Posted on 6/27/23 at 8:22 am to anc
Thanks for this, should be an interesting day. 
Posted on 6/27/23 at 8:46 am to anc
Anyone have an opinion on how a favorable ruling on AA would have to be laid out for it to start the domino in job hirings? That is definitely needed.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 8:55 am to anc
quote:
(affirmative action)
If they don't overturn this, it's criminal
Posted on 6/27/23 at 8:57 am to KAGTASTIC
quote:
Anyone have an opinion on how a favorable ruling on AA would have to be laid out for it to start the domino in job hirings? That is definitely needed.
Depends on what the court opinion says. If they say AA has no bearing on college admissions, then it will have very little effect outside of college admissions. But there are many that say it will gut it, which will mean companies and organizations will not have to consider affirmative action in hiring practices.
I work in higher ed. The greater higher ed community is expecting a ruling that says AA cant be used in college admissions. Whether the court goes the next step is an unknown.
This post was edited on 6/27/23 at 8:58 am
Posted on 6/27/23 at 9:01 am to anc
Biden v Nebraska is likely going to be on the last day of decisions simply because decision either way is going to piss someone off.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 9:01 am to anc
Next step could also be another lawsuit about AA in the workplace.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 9:21 am to Clemsontigers02
Thursday or Friday will be big. Student loan and AA opinions before long holiday and end of session 
Posted on 6/27/23 at 9:44 am to anc
I hope they abolish systemic racism.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 9:48 am to anc
quote:
I work in higher ed. The greater higher ed community is expecting a ruling that says AA cant be used in college admissions. Whether the court goes the next step is an unknown.
I’m so sorry to hear that, that means you are surrounded by worthless liberal academia that do not allow a difference of opinion from theirs!
My wife did as well on the administration side of things! Most of these idiots wouldn’t last a week out in the real world!!
Posted on 6/27/23 at 9:48 am to TrueTiger
The cases from today were the Colorado case, the North Carolina case, and Norfolk Southern.
I believe all of these were vacated or remanded at least in part back to the lower courts.
I believe all of these were vacated or remanded at least in part back to the lower courts.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 9:54 am to LaMigra
quote:
I’m so sorry to hear that, that means you are surrounded by worthless liberal academia that do not allow a difference of opinion from theirs!
My wife did as well on the administration side of things! Most of these idiots wouldn’t last a week out in the real world!!
EKG and I are both carrying the conservative flag. I will say that it is more conservative than you would believe, but many are scared so they don't talk about politics. Interestingly enough, these are your better professors.
The biggest activists on campus are normally the ones that have small departments that should be cut.
You can fix many of the problems in higher ed by doing three things:
1. Abolishing DEI initiatives
2. Eliminating departments that are losing money (not enough students to justify faculty/staff/resources)
3. Eliminating affirmative action in admission decisions
The reason liberal academia is all up in arms about these cases before the SCOTUS is that they know that is one of their three pillars that they are standing on. Conservative governors are starting to go after DEI as well.
I know of a college that has 6 faculty members for a program that has 13 majors in the entire department. 2:1 student faculty ratio is ridiculous. 12:1 is considered elite.
Guess what? All six are outspoken liberals.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 10:02 am to anc
quote:
many are scared so they don't talk about politics. Interestingly enough, these are your better professors.
This i know! Hence why I loath academia, bunch of narrow minded grown children thinking they are way more valuable than they
actually are!!
Posted on 6/27/23 at 10:11 am to anc
quote:
Moore v. Harper (North Carolina congressional map - interestingly, you probably want the GOP to lose this one. A GOP win would help in NC, but would allow California to redraw its congressional districts as well)
Is it really possible for California to redraw its 52 congressional districts in such a way that all 52 of them are represented by Democrats?
That would truly be groundbreaking, and progressive.
Posted on 6/27/23 at 10:12 am to tarzana
quote:
That would truly be groundbreaking, and progressive.
Idiot
Posted on 6/27/23 at 10:30 am to NawlinsTiger9
quote:pulling for destruction, huh?
NawlinsTiger9
Posted on 6/27/23 at 11:02 am to JJJimmyJimJames
Stay on topic, loon
Posted on 6/27/23 at 11:04 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
Thursday or Friday will be big. Student loan and AA opinions before long holiday and end of session
100% that is what is happening here.
Those will be last and late in the week to dull the response on a holiday weekend
Posted on 6/27/23 at 11:49 am to Fun Bunch
I'm not sure if Hansen was discussed on the board or not.
From SCOTUSblog which is the best scotus coverage out there, imo.
The question before the justices was whether a federal law that criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” an immigrant to come or remain in the United States unlawfully violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech. The court narrowly interpreted the law to avoid the First Amendment concerns that would be raised if “encourage or induce” were given their ordinary, conversational meanings — and include meanings such as to “influence,” “encourage,” or “inspire with hope” — as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had held they did.
Interesting history to this case if people want to read the entry at scotusblog.
More from the article
The federal government conceded that the law was unconstitutionally overbroad if given its ordinary meaning, and that it did not defend the statute if interpreted in that way. Instead, the government urged the court to read “encourage or induce” to encompass only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law — an interpretation the court ultimately adopted. The canon of constitutional avoidance requires the court to adopt a construction that will avoid constitutional violations if that interpretation is “fairly possible,” and the court concluded that the government’s interpretation was just that.
The court focused on the specialized definitions of “encourage or induce,” which it said have well-established meanings that are pervasive in both federal and state criminal law...
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas urged his colleagues to reconsider the overbreadth doctrine in a future case. He contended that it “lacks any basis in the text or history of the First Amendment” and, by requiring courts to balance constitutional and unconstitutional applications of the law, demands courts to do “nothing short of a society-wide policy determination of the sort that legislatures perform.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, penned a dissent in which she argued that the majority’s decision departed from ordinary statutory interpretation principles. The statute, Jackson argued, must be interpreted by its plain text and therefore is overbroad and must be struck down. REMEMBER THIS FOR LATER CASES AND OPINIONS FROM JACKSON.
How should we interpret the court’s less speech libertarian but arguably measured approach as we look ahead to major First Amendment cases like this term’s 303 Creative about whether a website designer has a First Amendment right to refuse to serve gay couples, or high-profile challenges to laws regulating social media platforms, which the court could take up next term? Have the justices been chastened by concerns about the court’s legitimacy? Or are the justices and new court simply in the process of defining their priorities, perhaps moving from the speech-libertarian tilt of recent courts to one that more heavily emphasizes religious rights, race neutrality, and separation of powers (such as the newly minted major questions doctrine)? Perhaps some mix of all of the above is at play — any of which may have significant consequences for the future of both the court and constitutional law.
From SCOTUSblog which is the best scotus coverage out there, imo.
The question before the justices was whether a federal law that criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” an immigrant to come or remain in the United States unlawfully violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech. The court narrowly interpreted the law to avoid the First Amendment concerns that would be raised if “encourage or induce” were given their ordinary, conversational meanings — and include meanings such as to “influence,” “encourage,” or “inspire with hope” — as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had held they did.
Interesting history to this case if people want to read the entry at scotusblog.
More from the article
The federal government conceded that the law was unconstitutionally overbroad if given its ordinary meaning, and that it did not defend the statute if interpreted in that way. Instead, the government urged the court to read “encourage or induce” to encompass only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law — an interpretation the court ultimately adopted. The canon of constitutional avoidance requires the court to adopt a construction that will avoid constitutional violations if that interpretation is “fairly possible,” and the court concluded that the government’s interpretation was just that.
The court focused on the specialized definitions of “encourage or induce,” which it said have well-established meanings that are pervasive in both federal and state criminal law...
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas urged his colleagues to reconsider the overbreadth doctrine in a future case. He contended that it “lacks any basis in the text or history of the First Amendment” and, by requiring courts to balance constitutional and unconstitutional applications of the law, demands courts to do “nothing short of a society-wide policy determination of the sort that legislatures perform.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, penned a dissent in which she argued that the majority’s decision departed from ordinary statutory interpretation principles. The statute, Jackson argued, must be interpreted by its plain text and therefore is overbroad and must be struck down. REMEMBER THIS FOR LATER CASES AND OPINIONS FROM JACKSON.
How should we interpret the court’s less speech libertarian but arguably measured approach as we look ahead to major First Amendment cases like this term’s 303 Creative about whether a website designer has a First Amendment right to refuse to serve gay couples, or high-profile challenges to laws regulating social media platforms, which the court could take up next term? Have the justices been chastened by concerns about the court’s legitimacy? Or are the justices and new court simply in the process of defining their priorities, perhaps moving from the speech-libertarian tilt of recent courts to one that more heavily emphasizes religious rights, race neutrality, and separation of powers (such as the newly minted major questions doctrine)? Perhaps some mix of all of the above is at play — any of which may have significant consequences for the future of both the court and constitutional law.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News