The big question, decision-wise, left is whether Justice Gorsuch has a surprise in for everyone in Janus. Remember, he said nothing at arguments:https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/the-key-justice-in-todays-high-profile-arguments-over?utm_term=.qazywxyDb#.mh47Xm7J5 …
-
-
The final
#SCOTUS decision of the term is in Florida v. Georgia — the water rights case. Breyer has the 5-4 decision, writing for himself, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, & Sotomayor. Thomas writes the dissent for himself, Alito, Kagan, & Gorsuch.Show this thread -
Here is the original jurisdiction decision in Florida v. Georgia: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/142%20orig_h3ci.pdf …
Show this thread -
Meanwhile, from the Attorney General:https://twitter.com/dominicholden/status/1011979136817094664 …
Show this thread -
JUST IN: The court has recessed with NO ANNOUNCEMENTS of any justices' retirements.
#SCOTUSShow this thread -
Yes, justices can announce retirements whenever they want. Much about
#SCOTUS is arbitrary — but this is one such arbitrary point that we pay attention to! An announcement of any retirement could still happen in the coming days, or any day. Carpe diem!Show this thread -
"We are not defeated; we are emboldened," AFSCME president Lee Saunders, putting on a good face, says — but, acknowledging the Janus defeat, takes aim at
#SCOTUS, calling it part of a "rigged system" whose decisions "take away" vulnerable people's "seats at the table."Show this thread -
Obviously, there is
#SCOTUS retirement news. See this thread from my Kennedy reporting and updates —>https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1012033815164997640 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's striking how yesterday's travel ban case was the majority sidestepping policy making and today the majority is dictating it.
-
The law on the travel ban is crystal clear. Yes, the president has the power to impose temporary travel restrictions. The end.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Of course the Constitution applies. But it has to actually MEAN something. You can't just say "BUT THE 37TH AMENDMENT!!!!" Read 8 USC 1182 (f). It lays out perfectly clearly that the President can restrict immigration in the interests of national security.
-
Sorry, travel or immigration. Either.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Shockingly weak dissent.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“We don’t think the 1st amendment should apply here because we don’t like the outcome.” “They are weaponizing the 1st amendment by taking away our ability to use the law to force people to give money to our political organizations!”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wonder what better use than protecting gov't employees from being grifted by judicial misinterpretation (i.e., Abood)? I know, guaranteeing lunatics (
@RepMaxineWaters) can vomit their stupidity in public while the nutcases she activates get jiggy w/ political violence.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm sure I must be missing something... but if Union dues being taken violates first amendment rights, what's that say about taxes being taken from my paycheck and used for things I don't approve of? His ruling talks about free speech and consent.
-
There is a specific amendment (16th) to the constitution that permits the collection of income taxes. That’s what your missing, and I’m all in favor of it’s repeal. Good luck with that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.