So maybe the best thing would be to take care of that, right here in Brainerd.
A spokesperson for Alito did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment, and no ill-advised rebuttal in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal had been published by the justice as of Monday evening.
3 Likes
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the theory that state legislatures have almost unlimited power to decide the rules for federal elections and draw partisan congressional maps without interference from state courts.
6 (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson) - 3 (Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito)
This would have completely destroyed the election process in the US.
ETA:
Another source:
5 Likes
They know how their bread is buttered; the wrong decision here would have lead to the end of America as we know it.
6 Likes
No more fancy free vacations if the country is in flames.
I have had night sweats over this potential decision. Whew.
11 Likes
Why do those dissenters not surprise me?
7 Likes
Another analysis:
5 Likes
Great news, but I still feel like our democracy is holding on by the skin of its teeth…
6 Likes
Well, this won’t make you feel better. It’s an odd one, for sure.
7-2, with Barrett and Thomas dissenting.
1 Like
Counterman was convicted based on an objective test that considered whether a reasonable person would believe his comments constituted “true threats”—which, unlike most speech, aren’t protected by the First Amendment—but his attorney argued that the Supreme Court should instead impose a subjective test that takes the speaker’s intent into account, because Counterman didn’t intend to threaten Whalen.
7 Likes
The Supreme Court will decide whether the 16th Amendment allows the taxation of unrealized income.
The goal of the realization rule is to ensure that people have the money to pay the income taxes due. The problem is that some people may abuse the rule to defer taxes, pay at a lower tax rate in the future, or avoid them altogether. Where to draw the line on realization has been debated by both the legislature and the courts.
Also, some have thought that this case will give hints on whether a future wealth tax would be unconstitutional.
Grrrrr
5 Likes
I think there’s one simple change that will bring in a lot of money.
If it’s used as collateral, it’s realized.
3 Likes
Supreme Court could soon take hatchet to anti-discrimination laws based on entirely fabricated case
3 Likes
Gorsuch again, with an originalist opinion for the commoner. Dogs and cats, sleeping together.
5 Likes
I have to say, this year’s decisions have been a real mixed bag and I’m quite surprised…
10 Likes
Right? This was not on my bingo card:
Justice Neil Gorsuch—joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
6 Likes
6 Likes
1 Like
and
ETA:
The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. “Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
I wonder if Roberts would also say:
“The student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of class, wealth, or legacy admissions.”
Prolly not, because as an originalist, legacy admissions fits right in.
7 Likes
