Interesting that Roberts joined the liberals in supporting precedent from a previous case where he was in the dissent.
Sort of the minimum you’d expect from a Chief Justice concerned about the reputation of his court. His court determined that a law substantially like this one was unconstitutional – people who don’t like that shouldn’t be allowed to keep trying every time there’s a new justice they like.
Good news. And another mark in Roberts’ favor.
It’s a pretty low bar, there. You’re saying that it’s a mark in his favor that he’s not a total conservative hack, I think. This decision should have been 7-2 or something, because only the two new guys have any excuse to revisit this. The previous law was essentially the same, and the already ruled on it just four years ago. Even the new guys should have followed that precedent.
No argument from me. I’m a judge and my wife is a lawyer. We’ve been horrified by what Trump and McConnell have done w/ the federal courts. At this point, we’re thrilled any time our worst fears aren’t fulfilled. This is a helluva judicial hole we gotta dig out of…
Oh, cool. Any further thoughts on the decision? Was it basically Roberts saying, “hey, no immediate do-overs”? How did Alito and Thomas (or even the newbies) avoid the stare decesis stuff?
Haven’t read it yet. Sorry. Thought the NPR article pretty good.
Used to be WAY more diligent about keeping up w/ SCt decisions than I am now.
Hey, get on that! I don’t pay you to sit around and post here.
Well, if you get a chance to read it and post, I’m keenly interested.