That’s plain English? Did the decision not elaborate on what other plaintiffs in which other situations would be allowed to sue? Why does the federal government have to be the one to sue in this particular case? Why can’t the people directly harmed by the state’s action file suit?
1 Like
I think we must have been!
1 Like
Roberts should be horrified. I mean that. Just the fact we can so accurately compare him with Taney means he’s likely never going to live up to his own delusions. If he considers himself a “good man” he might want to resign before he ruins that delusion completely.
At least Taney was honest about his bigotry. He didn’t entertain delusions of gallantry, like Roberts obviously does.
5 Likes
That article was barely intelligible. If one is going to make such bold statements about what the Court did or did not hold, how about a citation? That way, when I get the general sense that something is wrong or overstated, I can look at the case and see for myself. Of course, this is an “opinion” piece. “Armstrong is about much more than providers arguing about their fares.” “Fares”? Are we now talking public transit? Was this article written by a Freshman intern? TPM weekend stuff sure tends a little toward amateur hour.
8 Likes
But I thought this was the greatest Country in the world? The sad thing is that the ignoramuses who vote against their on interests and who will be affected by this, don’t have a fucking clue,
1 Like
So please explain it because I must say my eyes started glossing over trying to understand what this really means. Thank you in advance.
1 Like
So the summary is the physicians had no right to sue under the statute (and admitted it), but hoped to create one under the Federal Supremacy Clause (federal law trumps state law). The SC said, no. That wasn’t a sufficient basis to sue in this case. Look for another path.
EDIT: So the article above is nonsense. Essentially nothing has changed, the situation is as it was before. And I took out the SCOTUS BLOG quote.
7 Likes
Why? Kennedy sided with Ginsburg on this one.
2 Likes
Would it matter much where they are? The media nor anything affect the SCOTUS much. If the Congress was sane they could adjust it but they will not.
So…standing and such is fine for people saying they were hurt by getting subsidize or various other questionable things but it is flipped on its head by people that actually get hurt by something?
1 Like
SCOTUS is so politicized, it’s time for impeachment proceedings to begin based on hypocrisy resulting in failure to provide equal protection under the law. As I see it at least five justices are guilty.
3 Likes
Call out the 5 male activists on the conservative roberts court. NOW
1.202.479.3000 - 1.202.4793211
1 Like
And in TN they refused to expand even when it would not have cost the State a penny…even over the REPUG governors wishes.
2 Likes
I certainly hope not.
…so when our Chief Justice testified during his confirmation hearings that he valued president, he was lying. He was under oath. He committed perjury and he should be impeached.
It’s just a matter of time before one of these arse’s catches one between the running lights!
This is why Democrats need to keep the White House. The SCOTUS has done more damage to our country than the Republicans have.
3 Likes
We can only keep it if Democrats get out and vote
2 Likes
Since you are talking in historical terms, let’s HOPE that this is as bad as it gets. I shudder to think of what a Republican President in 2017 and on would do to the court.
1 Like
If they didn’t impeach Thomas for the multiple lies he told ( eg: never once discussed or even thought about abortion in his whole life) they aren’t going to come after Justice “umpire” either.