Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Finally (!) finished reading the 170-page (!!) IEEPA/Trump tariffs case, Learning Resources v. Trump.

Finally (!) finished reading the 170-page (!!) IEEPA/Trump tariffs case, Learning Resources v. Trump.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
lawfedi
25 Posts 10 Posters 14 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

    “JUSTICE GORSUCH claims not to understand this statement, insisting that I now must be applying the major-questions doctrine, and his own version of it to boot. See ante, at 17 (concurring opinion) ("My concurring colleagues all but endorse it today"); ante, at 2, 7, 18 (similar). Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, see ante, at 2-26, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one. But that is the fact of the matter.” Kagan, footnote 1. 11/

    heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
    heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
    heidilifeldman@mastodon.social
    wrote last edited by
    #13

    Thomas has his own dissent, which I am not dignifying with comment. /12

    rjblaskiewicz@mstdn.socialR heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH paul_ipv6@infosec.exchangeP 3 Replies Last reply
    0
    • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

      Thomas has his own dissent, which I am not dignifying with comment. /12

      rjblaskiewicz@mstdn.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
      rjblaskiewicz@mstdn.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
      rjblaskiewicz@mstdn.social
      wrote last edited by
      #14

      @heidilifeldman

      I saw "Thomas dissents" and thought, well that can only be good news, then. LOL

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

        Thomas has his own dissent, which I am not dignifying with comment. /12

        heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
        heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
        heidilifeldman@mastodon.social
        wrote last edited by
        #15

        The United States is under attack by an anti-constitutional, authoritarian President. The current Supreme Court cannot manage a crisp 6-3 decision about one small component of the regime’s disregard for the Constitution and for Congress. What we got instead⬇️ 13/13

        Link Preview Image
        elaterite@mastoart.socialE msbellows@c.imM p__x@mastodon.socialP 3 Replies Last reply
        0
        • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

          Thomas has his own dissent, which I am not dignifying with comment. /12

          paul_ipv6@infosec.exchangeP This user is from outside of this forum
          paul_ipv6@infosec.exchangeP This user is from outside of this forum
          paul_ipv6@infosec.exchange
          wrote last edited by
          #16

          @heidilifeldman

          there is no possible way to dignify thomas. he showed he was slime at his confirmation hearing and nothing he has ever done in the SCOTUS has ever contradicted that.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

            The United States is under attack by an anti-constitutional, authoritarian President. The current Supreme Court cannot manage a crisp 6-3 decision about one small component of the regime’s disregard for the Constitution and for Congress. What we got instead⬇️ 13/13

            Link Preview Image
            elaterite@mastoart.socialE This user is from outside of this forum
            elaterite@mastoart.socialE This user is from outside of this forum
            elaterite@mastoart.social
            wrote last edited by
            #17

            @heidilifeldman Thanks for the thread! So I guess the conservative doctrine of strict constructionism and adherence to original intent is dead, eh? (Of course, they drove a stake through that quaint concept with the immunity ruling in '24.)

            heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

              Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh are in an ongoing war to be the next Scalia: the Conservative Justices’ Statutory Construction Guru (the CJSCG ©️™️). This position enables the holder to write as if values, including political and ethical ones, are not driving her decisions, nay do not even her mind unconsciously as they makes them. Only words and value-free application of value-free tools of statutory construction determine the positions the CJSCG, to be then decreed by the Court. 5/

              amgine@mamot.frA This user is from outside of this forum
              amgine@mamot.frA This user is from outside of this forum
              amgine@mamot.fr
              wrote last edited by
              #18

              @heidilifeldman

              I would like to remind the readers that in 2000 Scalia (and every other justice then seated) lit their entire jurisprudence career - which turned out to be written on nitrocellulose.

              Scalia outlived his reputation considerably, imo.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

                The United States is under attack by an anti-constitutional, authoritarian President. The current Supreme Court cannot manage a crisp 6-3 decision about one small component of the regime’s disregard for the Constitution and for Congress. What we got instead⬇️ 13/13

                Link Preview Image
                msbellows@c.imM This user is from outside of this forum
                msbellows@c.imM This user is from outside of this forum
                msbellows@c.im
                wrote last edited by
                #19

                @heidilifeldman Thank you for proving I got today's daily Roberts curse right. https://c.im/@msbellows/116115096883612516

                heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

                  Finally (!) finished reading the 170-page (!!) IEEPA/Trump tariffs case, Learning Resources v. Trump. Yes, I’m glad that the immediate result was the Supreme Court clearly invalidating a Trump effort to assert dictatorial power. But the opinions in the case as a group showcase the mediocrity of the Roberts Court as a whole. #LawFedi 1/

                  npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                  npars01@mstdn.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                  npars01@mstdn.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #20

                  @heidilifeldman

                  The Federalist Society will be very disappointed with that assessment.

                  Koch Network was aiming for complete incompetence & corruption.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

                    Kavanaugh’s dissent’s bottom line: there is no problem with the President dictatorially usurping Congress’ tariff power, because, as it turns out Congress has being building up for decades to give Trump whatever dictatorial powers he wants. Alito and Thomas are with this program so they join the dissent. But bc he’s fighting to be CJSCG, Kavanaugh has to write MANY pages on his uniquely correct and distinctive statutory construction method which leads him to say Trump can do what he pleases. 9/

                    D This user is from outside of this forum
                    D This user is from outside of this forum
                    deepmud@mas.to
                    wrote last edited by
                    #21

                    @heidilifeldman who was it that paid kavanaughs couple hundred k debt??

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH heidilifeldman@mastodon.social

                      The United States is under attack by an anti-constitutional, authoritarian President. The current Supreme Court cannot manage a crisp 6-3 decision about one small component of the regime’s disregard for the Constitution and for Congress. What we got instead⬇️ 13/13

                      Link Preview Image
                      p__x@mastodon.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
                      p__x@mastodon.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
                      p__x@mastodon.social
                      wrote last edited by
                      #22

                      @heidilifeldman I'm still trying to figure out why some held such high opinions of the SCOTUS. My training over the past 20 years revolved around reasoning and I just can't find coherent reasoning behind these SCOTUS opinions.

                      heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • elaterite@mastoart.socialE elaterite@mastoart.social

                        @heidilifeldman Thanks for the thread! So I guess the conservative doctrine of strict constructionism and adherence to original intent is dead, eh? (Of course, they drove a stake through that quaint concept with the immunity ruling in '24.)

                        heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                        heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                        heidilifeldman@mastodon.social
                        wrote last edited by
                        #23

                        @elaterite there are no adjudicatory principles, just infighting and a disdain for women, people of color, and anybody who isn’t ultra-wealthy.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • msbellows@c.imM msbellows@c.im

                          @heidilifeldman Thank you for proving I got today's daily Roberts curse right. https://c.im/@msbellows/116115096883612516

                          heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                          heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                          heidilifeldman@mastodon.social
                          wrote last edited by
                          #24

                          @msbellows indeed you did.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • p__x@mastodon.socialP p__x@mastodon.social

                            @heidilifeldman I'm still trying to figure out why some held such high opinions of the SCOTUS. My training over the past 20 years revolved around reasoning and I just can't find coherent reasoning behind these SCOTUS opinions.

                            heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                            heidilifeldman@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                            heidilifeldman@mastodon.social
                            wrote last edited by
                            #25

                            @P__X The Supreme Court very rarely has very good reasoners as justices. There are many reasons why it is often in my opinion one of the least well staffed courts in the federal judiciary. The Robert score is particularly egregious because the majority not even aspiring to the craft of adjudication in a constitutional democracy.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
                            Reply
                            • Reply as topic
                            Log in to reply
                            • Oldest to Newest
                            • Newest to Oldest
                            • Most Votes


                            • Login

                            • Login or register to search.
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Categories
                            • Recent
                            • Tags
                            • Popular
                            • World
                            • Users
                            • Groups