Merrick Garland’s Department Of Justice Is A Threat To The Republic https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/24/merrick-garlands-department-of-justice-is-a-threat-to-the-republic/ excerpt: . . . On Thursday, following an historic 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a New York law for violating state residents’ Second Amendment rights, a DOJ spokeswoman released a statement saying “we respectfully disagree” with the ruling. The ruling is of course a great victory for the Constitution and a long-overdue vindication of New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights. The law in question had been on the books for more than a century, and made it nearly impossible for ordinary people to obtain a concealed-carry license, The unconstitutional law forced New Yorkers to prove to a municipal bureaucrat that they needed a gun for self-defense. In practice, this made it almost impossible for law-abiding citizens in New York to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. But neither the law in question nor the Supreme Court’s decision implicates federal gun laws in any way. There is no reason for the DOJ to weigh in on the matter or express any opinion whatsoever on the ruling. Only an utterly politicized Justice Department hoping to undermine the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority and sow the seeds of nullification would issue such a statement. more at the link
football coach prayer case has been decided Supreme Court sides with high school coach who led prayer on football field https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...chool-coach-who-led-prayer-on-football-field/
SCOTUS Rules That Doctors Who Write Prescriptions in Good Faith Can't Be Convicted of Drug Trafficking The unanimous decision will rein in prosecutions that have long had a chilling effect on pain treatment. https://reason.com/2022/06/27/scotu...-faith-cant-be-convicted-of-drug-trafficking/ excerpt: The Supreme Court today unanimously sided with two physicians who were convicted of drug trafficking based on opioid prescriptions that federal prosecutors portrayed as medically inappropriate. Six justices said the government is required to prove that a doctor "knowingly or intentionally" exceeded the authorization for medical use of controlled substances. Three justices disagreed with the majority's legal analysis but concluded that a doctor cannot be convicted of drug trafficking if he acted in "good faith." The decision in Ruan v. United States sends both cases back to the lower courts so they can assess the defendants' arguments that the instructions received by the juries that convicted them misstated the law seriously enough that they are entitled to new trials. But whether or not they prevail on those claims, the ruling represents an important limit on prosecutions that have long had a chilling effect on pain treatment. Physicians who prescribe opioids based on an honest belief that they are practicing good medicine now have less reason to fear that they will nevertheless face federal charges that could send them to prison for decades. more at the link
interesting assessment The Kavanaugh Concurrences in Bruen and Dobbs https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/28/the-kavanaugh-concurrences-in-bruen-and-dobbs/
I stopped after the beginning and skimmed. Will read the rest later. Seems ignorant of the author to be surprised by both decisions. Kav was calling his shot the entire time and saying so during oral. He's the new center of the court and ultimate decider. He's always wanted to be that guy - the guy who recaps both sides, say they have merit, and be the decider. He also wants to be Chief Justice, and stick it to Gorsuch, the nerd who didn't respect partyboy Kav when they went to school together. Way too many mainstream commentators and contributors are surprised by this. Substantively, it was what was expected. Even if Kav had joined Roberts, then next term 8 weeks would be approved, then even shorter. Roe was dying either officially or unofficially.
I don't think he was surprised by the decisions--he was surprised at Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh's apparent eagerness to stray from the decisions themselves to editorialize about side issues e.g., the right to travel.
All my dumb opinion, but yeah, he wants to make the news and be the man. He wants to be relatable to all sides. He wants to show his street cred when talking about Len Bias and hoops. I think there's going to be a lot more Kav stuff in the future.
A Republic, or a Juristocracy? More significant than the immediate consequences of recent Supreme Court decisions may be the Court’s effect on how Americans understand their country. https://www.city-journal.org/republic-or-juristocracy excerpt: These three opinions make clear not only that originalism is now the Court’s interpretive philosophy but also that the Court intends to explain why the original meaning remains relevant today. And the rise of a consistent originalism also explains the vehemence of the dissents because so much of the leftward movement in our public life previously had been at the direction or sufferance of the judiciary. more at the link
He has made it clear he needs to be in the position that Renquist put Thomas, writing concurrences or dissents on the landmark cases if he wants, writing the opinion of the court on the 9-0 cases no one is talking about. One of the bedrock principles of the court (right out of Article III) is that they decide cases and controversies brought before them, they don't resolve hypothetical variations on the theme of the current case.
Supreme Court curbs EPA’s ability to fight climate change https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/supreme-court-climate-change-epa-regulations/index.html CNN: The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming. In addition, the court cut back the agency's authority in general invoking the so-called "major questions" doctrine — a ruling that will impact the federal government's authority to regulate in other areas of climate policy, as well as regulation of the internet and worker safety. The ruling was 6-3. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the conservative majority, with the three liberal justices dissenting. The decision is one of the most consequential cases for climate change and clean air in decades. Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/suprem...ntal-protection-agencys-authority-11656598034
declaring CO2 a pollutant and the impact that has on the economy and individual liberty is clearly something that should be voted on by Congress, not an authority unconstitutionally ceded to some unelected regulatory agency
this is a really important case (potentially) for education policy. So much of what the Dept of Education does is questionable "delegation" that seems to go far beyond what the enabling legislation authorizes. It will be very interesting to see the kinds of cases that will develop the next few years
