0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"This Court will announce all remaining opinions ready during this Term of Court on Thursday, June 30, 2022, beginning at 10 a.m."
The EPA one soon please. The suspense is killing me.
I hope I'm wrong but I fear Roberts is going to hose us on this one. Sorry sack of shit that he has proven to be.
Fox reporting decisions will be released tomorrow at 10am
Case #2 for the day:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdfThe question before the court in Torres is whether states can invoke sovereign immunity as a defense to block lawsuits by returning veterans who want to reclaim their prior jobs with state employers. A federal statute authorizes lawsuits if employers do not accommodate the returning veterans.Pretty short majority opinion -- just 16 pages. Breyer writes that allowing Texas to have immunity in this case "would permit States to thwart national military readiness."
One wonders just how much mischief the dems/libs/progs will try to get into with the holding in this case.
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICEGORSUCH, and JUSTICE BARRETT join, dissenting.More than two decades ago, this Court found it “difficultto conceive that the Constitution would have been adoptedif it had been understood to strip the States of immunityfrom suit in their own courts and cede to the Federal Government a power to subject nonconsenting States to privatesuits in these fora.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 743(1999). Accordingly, we held—without qualification—that“the powers delegated to Congress under Article I of theUnited States Constitution do not include the power to subject nonconsenting States to private suits for damages instate courts.” Id., at 712 (emphasis added).No longer. Today, by adopting contrived interpretationsof Alden and the recent decision in PennEast Pipeline Co. v.New Jersey, 594 U. S. ___ (2021), the Court holds that atleast two (and perhaps more) Article I “war powers” do, infact, include “the power to subject nonconsenting States toprivate suits for damages in state courts,” Alden, 527 U. S.,at 712, and that Congress has exercised that power by enacting the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U. S. C. §4301 etseq. Alden should have squarely foreclosed that holding.As the Court there already explained, constitutional text,
On the very last day of court opinions being issued in their current session, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a new climate change related ruling, bringing an end to a string of high-profile cases announced in recent days. The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The case was last heard by the Court in February and it is expected to be among the last rulings announced on Wednesday morning as the court wraps up work prior to summer recess.The primary plaintiff of the case is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey; he is joined by attorney generals from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Morrissey’s office is also representing the interests of two coal companies in the case.The EPA, backed by the administration of President Joe Biden, is being represented by the U.S. Solicitor General. Ultimately, the plaintiffs are arguing that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to regulate power plant emissions and that Congress should be granted that authority. The plaintiffs argue that decisions around emissions should be at the hands of elected officials and not the EPA.The EPA responds to the argument by saying that the Court should not read into the text an artificial restriction because any qualification would be directed at the states, not the federal agency.What the court decides will have huge implications for the scope of federal administrative power and climate change policy.
Do we need him though?
The primary plaintiff of the case is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey
I'm so grateful he is our AG. He ran against Manchin for Senate last time and lost, unfortunately. Patrick is an excellent AG but lacks the TV presence and charisma of Manchin or some such glamorous candidate. Heaven knows the voters sometimes are swayed by a candidate's image, rather than his substance. Thank goodness for his lead on so many of these cases that try to curb federal overreach.
Serious question: Does Manchin really have charisma? I've only seen him speak a few times and he doesn't strike me as that charismatic. Maybe I haven't watched him enough.
