Oh, it gets much more targeted than just that. Not providing funds for agencies in order to render specific rules, regulations, or stipulations of U.S.C. toothless, even if a particular organization inside a department/agency is fully funded.
Chief Justice Roberts said:
This path appears to be more in line of what Nancy MacLean covered in Democracy in Chains. Acolytes of Hayek got this instituted in Chile—and it's essentially hamstrung the government—making it toothless to push back against the oligarchy. It's completely undemocratic.
I wasn't implying that my other examples warranted jury trial. Just that they are illustrations of government abuse justified by expediency
Its confirming the accused can invoke their right to trial. This puts more pressure on the government to negotiate settlements; you wont actually see many of these ever go to court if so. Perhaps there may even be less appeals overall.
Wouldn't it be fun if it there was convergence of the threads. I've seen it in state courts where the government has been successfully sued for underfunding obligations mandated by state law (e.g. education). Washington's Supreme Court even held the Washington Legislature in contempt a number of years back because even after losing a suit they didn't reallocate (or raise) appropriations in a timely manner.
Did you read the dissent?
Which will be immediately followed up in a ruling next year with a petulant "are you all idiots, I told you where the limits were!" Except the SCOTUS didn't, of course.
Better now than before the election. Make the outcomes of that a pillar of the Trump legacy, and upcoming presidency.
We saw that as recently as yesterday, didn't we?
It matters a ton if it happens beforehand, because it means Biden could have a mandate to pack the courts, force the issue, and make the states sue for the feds ignoring the decision. Sure, that's still a lot of short-term hurt, but at least there's a path.
This is what impeachment was made for. Too bad it's an almost impossible to exercise procedure.
Pretty potent stuff. There's now a front page article about it:
arstechnica.com
This one is incredibly straight forward though. The eighth addresses the manner of punishment, not the implications of policy. Imprisonment, in the general sense, is not inherently cruel and courts should not be in the business of deciding which laws are too mean
I dont disagree that the prohibition is potentially cruel and that cities need to provide some kind of designated space for camps or to do better for providing shelters. That, unfortunately is not enshrined as a right.
I wish to remind you that the issue at stake wasn't that homelessness couldn't be regulated, it was that the standard before was that you had to provide an alternative for the homeless other than just telling them to GTFO. Now the standard is that you can just tell them to GTFO, and not provide any alternative.
Well, picking a different 6-3 case today
As I've mentioned before, it's no surprise that center-conservative and far-conservative justices will still agree on conservative cases. Although I think this term will show that Barrett has moved left of Gorsuch. We'll have to do number crunching after everything is done for the term. Remember, it's a spectrum. No judge is monolithic (note that Jackson found for Fischer here).
The moment you edited your post I knew you were gonna bring that up. She has moved "left" of Jack and Shit. She voted alongside her GOP buddies to criminalize homelessness and kill Chevron. Painting it as a broad spectrum with these rare swaps in the usual 6-3 majority is a convenient way for centrists to pretend that the SCOTUS that we have right now is fair and legitimate. It isn't.
We can go back over the last two days for recent examples as well.
Again, as I've said before, a 3-3-3 perspective is merely an analysis tool. Nobody contests that the court has moved more conservative than when Kennedy was the center.
