1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running SCOTUS thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. Kato

    Kato Well-Known Member

    Well, the fear, really, is that he doesn't mean "Stop trying," as much as "Try differently."
    Donny in his element likes this.
  2. Amy

    Amy Well-Known Member

    SCOTUS calendar shows opinions will be released tomorrow. No additional dates on the calendar now. Remaining cases are:

    Trump v Deutsche Bank and Trump v Vance - one involving a state grand jury subpoena pertaining to non-official conduct of the president and one the statutory authority of congress to subpoena non privileged Trump documents from a third party.

    St James School and Our Lady of Guadalupe School presenting the issue of whether the 1st A protects religious schools from discrimination claims for teachers whose duties include some religious functions. One involved an age discrimination claim and one a teacher fired after disclosing a medical condition.

    McGirt v Oklahoma, which is about who has jurisdiction over the defendant, but is really about tribal sovereignty, the definition of reservation and whether much of Tulsa is really within a reservation. The Court deadlocked on this one last year.

    Little Sisters of the Poor v. PA and Trump v. PA, addressing the administration’s regulatory expansion of exemptions from the contraceptive mandate, allowing anyone/organization an exemption based on a claim a sincerely held religious belief against women’s use of some or all contraceptive methods and an exemption to anyone except publicly held companies if a moral objection is claimed. The regulatory exemption also excused those who formerly were required to follow the “accommodation” which is the filing of a form stating the religious objection and would then allow female employees to obtain coverage directly. The Court could avoid a substantive ruling by finding the failure to provide a notice and comment period when the interim final rules violates the APA.
  3. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    I think we need to be ready for all of this hope that the Court was sticking it to Trump is going to go away in two of these cases.
  4. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    He and his klan are going to run the table. That's why these announcements have been held back. SCOTUS announced the ones that would enrage Trumpists and got them out of the way. Roberts makes these proclamations now so he can enjoy a summer without being harassed.
  5. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    Look so long as the SCOTUS upholds the law in the subpoenas, I'm good with the others. Can't ask for a royal flush every time. I'll take the pair of Aces and move on.
  6. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member


    The Roberts court tipped its hand with the Mueller decision last week.
  7. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

  8. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Say hello to Chief Justice Barack Hussein Obama.
    2muchcoffeeman likes this.
  9. Regan MacNeil

    Regan MacNeil Well-Known Member

    And we wait at least another 24 hours. Two decisions today, neither to do with Trump's taxes. Three more to go.
  10. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    Not surprised the court went against the contraceptive requirement. I was a little shocked they struck down the employment dispute but it appears the court really wants to stay out of the way of religious matters.
  11. Mngwa

    Mngwa Well-Known Member

    Stay out of the way? They're giving religious employers more and more power over the civil rights of their employees.
  12. Driftwood

    Driftwood Well-Known Member

    How hard would it be to say:
    "Insurance pays for prescriptions. It's none of the employers' business what that prescription is. There is no legal distinction between blood pressure medication, insulin, or birth control. They are all prescriptions."
    PaperDoll and Kato like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page