Agreed, but you should add "and Congress and the President should simply ignore it". Time to correct our ancient Constitution designed to protect one minority i.e rich property owners and particularly the owners of slaves. against the democratic elected majority
"Sloppy", probably too much party near the keg... Kavanaugh corrects opinion after Vermont official complains https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/kavanaugh-corrects-opinion-after-vermont-official-complains
So... basically judge thomas is taking the conservative partisan position that a few social media companies (platforms) like facebook and twitter cannot control content on their businesses and instead must be considered a form of common carrier or accommodations (like a hotel). Thus have not first amendment rights (versus other businesses that were considered "people" and thus have such rights). And facebook and twitter are called out because they are most popular (since content can appear on other platforms).
I am not suggesting holding your breath on this... but hey, maybe sheldon whitehouse might find a large group of people to discuss this with and maybe they might come up with and idea or two?
My understanding is that the Criminal Justice Reform that was passed under Trump with Democrats helped addressed things like mandatory sentencing. This might be an area where Congress could actually address the issue of giving life sentences without parole.
"On a new, conservative court, Kavanaugh sits at the center": https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/05/on-a-new-conservative-court-kavanaugh-sits-at-the-center/
I wonder what is more indefensible... declaring you will have the U.S. Senate block any Democrat-nominated supreme court justice, or using the same to push out a sitting Supreme Court Justice (Breyer).
another unanimous decision, this time the NCAA antitrust case https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
We can all agree that the NCAA is a monopoly and the most un- American organization around. They go out of their way to screw over the athletes in the name of amateurism while they are making billions of dollars.
Today is the last Monday in June. Where are the opinions? https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/28/today-is-the-last-monday-in-june-where-are-the-opinions/
most interesting thing about this is Blackman's assessment of the judicial temperaments of each justice The Most Fascinating ConLaw Decision of the Term: PennEast Pipeline v. New Jersey https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/3...n-of-the-term-penneast-pipeline-v-new-jersey/ excerpt: Still, there has been one important constitutional law decision that largely flew under the radar: PennEast Pipeline v. New Jersey. Ilya may be right that both sides deserved to lose. But the contrast between the majority opinions and the dissenting opinions reveal a lot about the present Roberts Court. The Justices divide about text, history, and structure. They disagree about enumerated powers and sovereign immunity. They differ about the role that historical practice plays in constitutional discourse. This case has everything. Moreover, the lines were not ideological. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch wrote one dissent, which was joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Barrett wrote a second dissent, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch. I would describe this line as the non-curious/curious caucuses. The members of the majority seem to lack a curiosity about the law. They largely view the law in a utilitarian fashion to achieve certain outcomes. Of course, they do not share the same values. Justices Alito and Sotomayor approach the law from diametrically opposite perspectives. But they are both heavily influenced by pragmatic concerns. Justice Breyer wants to make democracy work. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh are concerned with maintaining some abstract form of equipoise. These principles, whatever they are, generally prevail over any formal doctrine. They are not textualists or originalists. They are pragmatists. And in a case without any obvious ideological valences, they unite. The dissenters are different. They routinely exhibit a genuine curiosity about the law. They are often willing to challenge staid conceptions of the law in the pursuit of ideas. More often than not, Justice Kagan has to suppress those urges to keep a majority opinion. But during oral arguments, and when she is in dissent, Kagan shows her scholarly flair. Justice Thomas routinely seeks to challenge conventional thinking. And Justice Gorsuch signs onto that mantle. And, I'm glad to see that Justice Barrett is flexing her intellectual muscles. Her Penn East dissent was the strongest opinion she has written so far. I'll have much more to say about it in a later writing. more at the link
