Search results

Theoretical/historical question... While this theoretically was a joke, has that argument been made before the SC in the past? This feels like how you'd get state religions(for individual states) and such, and I know those existed at one point - Massachusetts apparently had one in the early...

Case to watch for next year: I don't know why they'd take it up if they intend to let the state court decision stand on its own. Either they intend to lay the smackdown or they plan to do this, and after all of this year's decisions this summer, I'm leaning towards the latter.

We all knew it was coming...

Reed Richards wore it well

Yet another decision increasing the power of individual states over Federal. In summary from another tweet on it:

My only quibble is I would have liked to have seen a Deluxe-sized shell and Core-sized inner robot, but if that's not possible, this is definitely up there

It's missing a "Bub"

As I saw someone else put it, they're trying to set it up so each state has it's own jurisdiction with little to no Federal oversight. Effectively seceding in all but name. At best they're trying to get something akin to the original Confederation of States that failed before the Constitution...

Responses from some lawyers on today's cases(I'm guessing there was more than just the prayer thing today?):

Under the "Nor restrict the practice thereof" part of the religious law prohibitions statement. Which means malicious compliance time - does the Satanic Temple have any prayers that teachers could use?

HIPAA likely doesn't matter in this case anyways... THAT'S why everyone's been warning about period trackers and the like. You can also get a lot of info from shopping records - which is why I've also seen reccommendations to buy tampons etc with cash only now. HIPAA does not have the...

I thought that was implied in the "Months became days, then hours" line, or however it was worded - he'd had her out of the buffer a lot more because he was trying it.

Not sure if there's a better thread to post this but:

Yeah, I was pointing out that using the gun decision and this to say they can unilaterally ignore an amendment is false. If you're gonna fight something it's helpful to know what you're fighting and where the borders are so you know where to strike. They can repeal precedents, but they can't...

That militia statement has been argued over for a long time because of interpretation, true, but that's because of how it is phrased, and how definitions have changed over the years. This would be something modern, written by people looking to explicitly codify something. An originalist judge...

That's the entire point of an amendment - the Supreme Court doesn't get a say in it. They can interpret the amendment but they can't actually touch it in any way - that falls specifically to Congress and the states. And it wouldn't just be for abortion specifically, it'd be for privacy, so you...