zeke5123a
28d ago
I think it’s 5-4 with ACB being on the liberal side. Government got the harder of the question but BK made the most impactful point re asymmetry of the outcome and Roberts understands institutionally forum shopping nationwide injunctions increases the frictions between the branches in a way that will cause a constitutional crisis. ACB reads too much of the NYT.
zeke5123a
28d ago
A few points:
-
If the argument is “it doesn’t matter SCOTUS will decide anyhow,” then (1) maybe not due to cert denial, (2) maybe yes but if SCOTUS sided with the 499/500, then an injustice occurred potentially for years, and (3) if trying to solve time then legal issues don’t get to evolve within multiple rulings to tease out the thorny issues.
-
DOJ discussed long standing precedent that the general rule is they respect the opinion and judgement but they reserve the right to respect only the judgement. Notably, this is a historic precedent something that the DOJ actually pursued while Kagan was solicitor genera. However, the DOJ stated they would respect both the opinion and judgement of SCOTUS.
zeke5123a
29d ago
I don’t think it’s that crazy of a position. First, the problem with national wide injunctions without classes is the asymmetry of the outcome. 500 different plaintiffs can bring the lawsuit in different district courts. 1/500 needs to win if the judge gives a nationwide injunction. Contrast with a class where the plaintiffs are in fact bound by a loss.
Second, the idea the government would in fact look for not yet born residents to impose something where there is direct SCOTUS authority is a hypothetical that is so far out there compared to the first concern because the government would quickly lose (eg new plaintiff would say there is a scotus case directly on point).
zeke5123a
30d ago
Why would you assume that? The administrator doesn’t have any long term benefit if the school is in good condition far off in the future but benefits greatly from short term boosted numbers.
zeke5123a
30d ago
The risk for the student is that they put off college for six months (hell they could apply for the following year). But having this fellowship would probably be a pretty big leg up on admissions. Is it that big of a risk for a student?
zeke5123a
30d ago
Well, let me add a third — administrators don’t have equity in the school. Right now, schools are eating their seed corn (turning out shitty products but coasting on reputation). Since people still get jobs out of college people are still willing to go to college. But if that stops, then your second point no longer applies.
And hence my third point—management isn’t aligned with the long term incentive of the college.
zeke5123a
30d ago
Is it? You’d be asking people to take a risk but (1) graduate a year sooner (so earnings start a year sooner) and (2) university is getting really expensive. When you NPV the benefits compared to the cost I’m not sure how large the payment would need to be.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
I find all of what those kids did so distasteful. It’s weaponized empathy. Sorry but being able to handle stress is part of the test. Learning disabilities suck but so too does having a lower IQ. Life isn’t fair. Why is cosmic fairness the standard?
zeke5123a
1mo ago
I wonder if you could have a new university that initially paid students to come. There is an SAT cut off plus a requirement to have some AP. Three year intensive with only core classes needed (you should be able to do the requisite credit hours in 3 years if you have sufficient AP and a single summer night class). Internships required. After the first couple of classes succeed in getting hired at strong firms, you flip the switch and start charging 50k a year.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
Sure of course. But if all they are doing is adding a mens rea requirement, then there is less chance of randomly being jailed.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
You still need an actus reus. If you remove “strict liability” you are just adding a new element government must prove; not changing the predicate to something wishy washy.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
So the scandal is in part that Ms Dong wanted the dong of her attending? I’ll show myself out…
zeke5123a
1mo ago
This presumes government services provide benefits. I’m sure most government employees believe they provide a benefit (it’s hard to function believing you offer no value while getting a paycheck) but it’s possible (maybe likely) that many government programs are simply make work.
And if that’s right then DOGE is a massive successive because it proves the civil service is unnecessary and outdated.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
So a magazine that is pro immigration broadly (in a chamber of commerce way) interviewed a few people who also benefit from the immigration and this is supposed to tell us about the conditions on the ground in Springfield?
zeke5123a
1mo ago
This just seems very premature. If in a three months, tariffs have increased only a little compared to Jan 20th and there are a lot of trade deals, will Scott say “hey I was wrong and the right can course adjust much faster than the left.”
zeke5123a
1mo ago
But that’s in part because they want to say the price to the consumer is X. They then say the cost is X plus Y (the sales tax).
Amazon already paid the tariff prior to selling to a customer and indeed didn’t pay tariff on the price charged to the customer (unlike sales tax).
It is more akin to CIT which Amazon doesn’t break out.
I don’t really have a problem with Amazon doing that but at the same time wish they’d do it for other government taxes or inefficiencies.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
I am not a family law lawyer, but it seems like the father may not have any rights under LA since the parents weren’t married when the kid was born.
zeke5123a
1mo ago
But what if the guy is a great hockey player who unfortunately has the last name satan?
How about bring overturned on a national injunction is evidence of bad behavior and therefore removal is merited? That is, a judge should only do it in the most extreme clear situations?
More options
Context Copy link