- 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
re: Supreme Court Decision Thread - Wednesday, June 29
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:01 am to BuckyCheese
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:01 am to BuckyCheese
Oklahoma vs. Castro (Kavanaugh) is first
The Court holds that the federal government and the state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.
The Court holds that the federal government and the state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.
This post was edited on 6/29/22 at 9:02 am
2
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:01 am to rt3
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
5-4... Kav writes the Opinion of the Court
interestingly... Gorsuch writes the dissent joined by the libs
5-4... Kav writes the Opinion of the Court
quote:
Held: The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdic- tion to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.
interestingly... Gorsuch writes the dissent joined by the libs
This post was edited on 6/29/22 at 9:04 am
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:02 am to Jake88
quote:If they're that great, then Congress can codify them into law. Either that, or just let the states handle it.
Will this result in the loss of what some might call good regulations in the area of consumer protection or investment matters?
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:03 am to rt3
Where do you go to in the ruling to see the actual vote/decision? I can’t read much less understand 70 pages.
This post was edited on 6/29/22 at 9:03 am
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:03 am to laxtonto
quote:
In sitting here trying to come up with what would be a possible compromise decision on WV vs EPA and am struggling how the court could put forth a narrow decision on this that doesn't majorly hamper the administrative state.
Keep Chevron firmly in place.
Limit the ruling strictly to the West Virginia v. EPA case.
Much like what Roberts wanted to do with Dobbs.
You could look for Thomas and Alito to concur in result but file concurring opinions arguing that the opinion shouldn't be limited.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:04 am to tiger91
quote:
Where do you go to in the ruling to see the actual vote/decision? I can’t read much less understand 70 pages.
go to the end of the syllabus and it says who wrote the Opinion and who joined it
that's essentially your vote... along with those who concurred
ETA: in the case just released... the vote is on page 3 of the PDF
This post was edited on 6/29/22 at 9:06 am
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:05 am to rt3
Thanks rt.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:05 am to tiger91
quote:
Where do you go to in the ruling to see the actual vote/decision? I can’t read much less understand 70 pages.
Typically where it starts with Held: in the Summary.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:05 am to anc
quote:
The Court holds that the federal government and the state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.
This would have been such a help to Longmire, alas, that show is over.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:06 am to PsychTiger
quote:
This would have been such a help to Longmire, alas, that show is over.
what about Yellowstone?
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:06 am to anc
Seems like the court, with this case, is being careful not to tread on the rights of Indian land.
Will they stay the course and not tread on the State of WV vs EPA?
Will they stay the course and not tread on the State of WV vs EPA?
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:06 am to Herooftheday
quote:
Is there a limit on how many wrongs to be righted?
With Swampers? Absolutely. You can't have too much change which reimposes restrictions on federal powers too quickly, otherwise you'll be run out of DC as a radical.
The saving grace here is that November is going to be the reddest of waves due primarily to the ongoing economic clusterfrick that are Biden's domestic economic and energy policies. What I mean by that is that if Dems looked to retain both chambers in November, then such a ruling (especially when combined with Roe) might well elicit the long-threatened court-packing.
With the House definitely and the Senate possibly turning red, that no longer needs to be a concern.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:08 am to rt3
quote:
what about Yellowstone?
Haven't gotten to that one yet, but will in the future as time permits. Stupid work interfering with my TV viewing.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:10 am to Bard
Gorsuch dissents are always so spicy
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:10 am to Bard
damn... that Oklahoma case seems more contentious that I thought... Gorsuch didn't end his dissent with "I respectfully dissent" or even "I dissent"
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:10 am to Gideon Swashbuckler
quote:As they should be. You shouldn't be able declare everything to be an emergency and declare that an EO is needed to have someone take out the garbage. To me, EOs should have very limited scope and maybe even a mandatory expiration date. Once the "emergency" is over, send the EO to congress and let the proper branch of government govern.
If not, then all EOs are in play for challenge too, no?
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:11 am to rt3
With R-numbers... so we have 2 more for tomorrow
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety
written by Breyer... 5-4 with Roberts & Kav joining the libs in the majority
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety
written by Breyer... 5-4 with Roberts & Kav joining the libs in the majority
quote:
Held: By ratifying the Constitution, the States agreed their sovereignty would yield to the national power to raise and support the Armed Forces. Congress may exercise this power to authorize private dam- ages suits against nonconsenting States, as in USERRA. Pp. 3–16.
This post was edited on 6/29/22 at 9:13 am
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:11 am to Diamondawg
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety
and we are done for the day.
and we are done for the day.
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:12 am to anc
frick
Posted on 6/29/22 at 9:12 am to anc
quote:
and we are done for the day.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News