Supreme Court 9-0 Decision

[Axtremus]

@LuFins-Dad said in Supreme Court 9-0 Decision:

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/supreme-court-geraldine-tyler-minneapolis-hennepin-county/89-4af70ecc-dfe3-4a07-9497-b49d3f1565c2

[Horace]

@Axtremus said in Supreme Court 9-0 Decision:

@Horace said in Supreme Court 9-0 Decision:

@Axtremus Maybe read the link, which is to the decision.

OK, the Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kavanaugh agree with the majority's judgement but disagreed with the rationale the majority used to get to that judgment; they separate opinions to that effect. E.g., Kavanaugh's opinion says he agrees with majority to dump the "significant nexus" test but disagree with the majority's "continuous connected surface" test.

That's explains why some reported it as a 9-0 decision while some others reported it as a 5-4 decision.

That would be known as dishonest reporting. A lie, even.

I doubt many SCOTUS decisions are universally supported by all justices in all facets of judgement. That's why they give different written opinions.

And I will never - ever - apologize for hating white males. If you don't, then I feel sorry for your evil heart.

[Doctor Phibes]

Call me Ishmael if you will, but I hate white whales.

[George K]

My disdain for them has grown to become Ahab-it.

[Doctor Phibes]

@George-K said in Supreme Court 9-0 Decision:

My disdain for them has grown to become Ahab-it.

They are real Dicks.

[Jon]

Two great decisions.

Not long ago I posted about the old lady’s case under the thread title “May it be unanimous”. I got my wish.

[Mik]

So this court is not quite as disastrous as previously presented. Go figure.

[George K]

It took CBS 5 paragraphs to say that the decision was unanimous, and then hastily, within the same sentence commenting that the reasoning was split.

And of course, despite the unanimous ruling, it labeled SCOTUS as a "conservative court." (Tut, tut, look at those wingnuts).

[Jon]

@George-K I would say it’s more complicated than that.

The court unanimously decided that this couple’s land didn’t constitute wetlands under the clean water act. Fair enough, but that in itself would have impact just on them and cases with similar fact patterns.

A majority of 5 went on to very specifically define what was included and excluded from the Act, in a very sweeping way, going far beyond what was necessary to find for the plaintiff in this one case.

So the dissent (written by that libtard Brett Kavanaugh) was on rather substantial policy matters, not quite captured by saying ‘different reasoning’.

[George K]

I'm not disputing your take on how the court decided. Simply pointing out how CBS framed it as the "conservative court" decided, when as a matter of fact, as you point out MAGA Kavanaugh dissented on the policy.

[Jon]

The ironic thing is the SCOTUS ruling peels back what was an executive power grab beyond what congress intended and wrote in the bill. Institutionally, this is a pro-congress decision.

[Jolly]

Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?

[Jon]

It is. I was pointing out the irony of congressional leaders complaining about Scotus reversing an executive power grab of their territory. But we've pretty much passed the point when're institutional interests trump party interests, for both sides. Exceptions exist, of course.