# 2018 SCOTUS Predictions **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 4, 2018, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608 "2018-05-04T22:58:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/21 "2018-06-04T14:33:15Z")
Nicely narrow decision. I predicted they would decide this way, but not with such tight reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/22 "2018-06-04T14:43:54Z")
What a terrible decision. Completely punted on addressing the substantive issue even though it was squarely before the Court. > [@](#): > > The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market. Frankly, I would rather they had ruled for the baker on the merits of the First Amendment claim. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/23 "2018-06-04T15:19:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What a terrible decision. Completely punted on addressing the substantive issue even though it was squarely before the Court. I mean this is what the Supreme Court tends to do. Go for narrow over broad rulings whenever they can. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/24 "2018-06-04T16:01:31Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > SCOTUS rules 7-2 for the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop in a narrow ruling based on the particular facts. Ruling, at first glance, seems to leave open the constitutional question at the hear of the dispute. > > Roughly, the high court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission approached the case in a biased manner, essentially with a hostility to religion. Well, my Masterpiece prediction was all sorts of wrong. Of course, the decision was total crap, failing to address the substantive issues and practically inviting future litigation. I mean, what the shit if the case was so tarnished by the path it took, why go through the rigmarole of the arguments at all on any of the substantive issues. Here was the question presented: > [@](#): > > Whether applying Colorado’s public > accommodations law to compel Phillips to > create expression that violates his sincerely > held religious beliefs about marriage violates > the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of > the First Amendment. Does the decision answer that? No. So lame. Kennedy is the worst writer. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/25 "2018-06-04T16:08:54Z")
Imagine being a Kennedy clerk. You give the guy a draft and he’s like, “This is far too crisp and clear. Please muddle up this passage, and use more vague adjectives. Like this…” ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2018, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/26 "2018-06-04T16:18:04Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Imagine being a Kennedy clerk. You give the guy a draft and he’s like, “This is far too crisp and clear. Please muddle up this passage, and use more vague adjectives. Like this…” With [brilliant rhetoric](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf) like this: > [@](#): > > The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That is just terrible writing. Maybe the baker can be limited, but maybe not! ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/27 "2018-06-05T02:37:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What a terrible decision. Completely punted on addressing the substantive issue even though it was squarely before the Court. > > Frankly, I would rather they had ruled for the baker on the merits of the First Amendment claim. I don’t think that your view is very nice…or tolerant, and seems very hostile of Kennedy’s writing style. ETA: Both left and right think Kennedy is full of shit and not rooted in law. It’s a shame that he has written so much bad law in the last 30 years because both of our sides will defer to him to get the 5th vote we need. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2018, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/28 "2018-06-05T04:36:32Z")
Scotusblog is predicting that CJ Roberts will write the redistricting decision that is still outstanding, based on their analysis of the allocation of opinions. If correct, this presumably does not bode in favor of an expansive Court role in the oversight of political considerations in the redistricting process. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/29 "2018-06-18T15:10:44Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > **Gil** punts somehow saying that partisan gerrymandering is not justiceable, 5-4 conservative wing prevailing. [Gil was released today](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf)and I got the outcome/rationale right, but the vote count wrong. I thought it would be 5-4, but it looks like there were no actual dissents: > [@](#): > > ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, > GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in > which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined except as to Part III. KAGAN, > J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, > JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part > and concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. The entire opinion except part III is 9-0, and on Part III is what, 7-0? Vacated and remanded for lack of standing. Sent back to lower court to determine if there is actual standing. > [@](#): > > Certain of the plaintiffs before us alleged that they had > such a personal stake in this case, but never followed up > with the requisite proof. The District Court and this > Court therefore lack the power to resolve their claims. We > vacate the judgment and remand the case for further > proceedings, in the course of which those plaintiffs may > attempt to demonstrate standing in accord with the analysis > in this opinion. ---
**Author:** ![N9IWP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/n9iwp/32/3154_2.png) [@N9IWP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/N9IWP)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/30 "2018-06-18T16:30:41Z")
Sorry for not following too closely – which decisons are left? Are they all going to be dumped June 25? Brian ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/31 "2018-06-18T16:34:35Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > [Gil was released today](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1161_dc8f.pdf)and I got the outcome/rationale right, but the vote count wrong. I thought it would be 5-4, but it looks like there were no actual dissents: > > The entire opinion except part III is 9-0, and on Part III is what, 7-0? Vacated and remanded for lack of standing. Sent back to lower court to determine if there is actual standing. Respectfully, I don’t think you got the rationale right. They did not say gerrymandering wasn’t justiciable. They said the parties hadn’t proven standing. Indeed, they remanded the case instead of dismissing it. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/32 "2018-06-18T16:59:39Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Respectfully, I don’t think you got the rationale right. They did not say gerrymandering wasn’t justiciable. They said the parties hadn’t proven standing. Indeed, they remanded the case instead of dismissing it. You’re right. I spoke too soon before reading it carefully. Looking for something like a win on accurate predictions…they did punt 🙂 * * * @N9IWP - Still remaining of the ones identified in the OP are 1, 4, and 6. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/33 "2018-06-18T17:02:29Z")
A punt indeed. There have been a lot of those. Which is probably for the best. Right now I’m more worried about our democracy as a whole than about any particular case. So keeping SCOTUS out of the spotlight is just aces by me. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/34 "2018-06-18T17:38:21Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > A punt indeed. There have been a lot of those. Which is probably for the best. Right now I’m more worried about our democracy as a whole than about any particular case. So keeping SCOTUS out of the spotlight is just aces by me. I sort of agree, but in a way I disagree. These parties have spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, briefed the issue extensively, and SCOTUS granted cert. This issue will come back up again, possibly with new parties who have standing. Why waste time, money, and legal efforts to bring the same question back up again? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/35 "2018-06-18T18:34:26Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Why waste time, money, and legal efforts to bring the same question back up again? I generally agree. But if ever there were a time for SCOTUS to keep its powder dry, that time is now. We are likely to face some significant constitutional crises in the next 12 months. Better not to have a nasty partisan fight over something that can wait a year. We’ll see. If my theory is right, then they will punt on the Muslim Ban as well. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/36 "2018-06-19T16:26:26Z")
After reading Gill, it doesn’t seem like a punt. It seems like a 5-4 upholding the gerrymander without anyone actually saying so and just dancing around the issue. If the four in “concurrence” had Kennedy, it would be a different opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/37 "2018-06-19T17:55:21Z")
It’s a punt, just the worst kind of punt. You know a remand is proper when the appellate court says, “on remand, the trial court should consider…” You know it’s just a veiled dismissal when the opinion sends the case back without giving the trial court or the parties any guidance at all. The only guidance here is: > [@](#): > > We therefore remand the case to the District Court so that the plaintiffs may have an opportunity to prove concrete and particularized injuries using evidence—unlike the bulk of the evidence presented thus far—that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes. Well that the fuck sort of evidence does that require? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/38 "2018-06-19T23:12:10Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s a punt, just the worst kind of punt. You know a remand is proper when the appellate court says, “on remand, the trial court should consider…” You know it’s just a veiled dismissal when the opinion sends the case back without giving the trial court or the parties any guidance at all. The only guidance here is: > > Well that the fuck sort of evidence does that require? But the “concurrence” basically said that if someone shows up at the hearing and: 1) is a mammal, and 2) breathing oxygen, then there is standing. Even under the majority opinion, there just needs to be plaintiffs from each district in Wisconsin and collectively plead a right to vote that would elect Democrats in each district and/or that his particular district was so packed that his vote was wasted. After we have this redo, then we’ll do it again. I think Kennedy, still trying to believe that he is conservative, is tired of being in a 5-4 of landmark decisions. Remember that the Court did not even take up the SSM cases until the 6th Circuit forced its hand. Kennedy is basically saying that he is too old for this shit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/39 "2018-06-19T23:23:08Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I sort of agree, but in a way I disagree. These parties have spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, briefed the issue extensively, and SCOTUS granted cert. This issue will come back up again, possibly with new parties who have standing. Why waste time, money, and legal efforts to bring the same question back up again? Did. . . did you just give an Allen charge to the US Supreme Court? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608/40 "2018-06-19T23:54:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did. . . did you just give an Allen charge to the US Supreme Court? LOL. I guess I did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2018-scotus-predictions/813608.md?page=3)