a thoughtful web.
Share good ideas and conversation.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment
ButterflyEffect  ·  1304 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Supreme Court cases round-up (4/1/17)

These are fascinating and really help me to keep up to date with some of the workings of this country, as always, thanks a ton for putting this together.

    SCOTUS didn’t actually address whether the 11 districts were properly drawn. Instead, they just said that the lower court used the wrong standard in evaluating those challenges.

So, does that open the possibility for a case to brought up on if the districts were properly drawn? Or is this a completely closed issue?

    Note that because the Court is reviewing an order dismissing a suit, they have to accept all (reasonable) facts alleged by Manuel in analyzing the case. So this is Manuel’s version of events, and it has not been proven by trial.

Is there any obligation for the court to accept (reasonable) facts provided by other parties involved in the lower courts?

    Specifically, the question is whether it simply tells merchants that they cannot charge more for using credit cards, in which case it’s a simple commercial regulation and not subject to the First Amendment. On the other hand, if it does affect speech, he finds this to probably be pretty minimal, since “the merchant would remain free to say whatever it wanted so long as it also revealed its credit-card price to customers.”

This seems to be a pretty obvious outcome, unless I'm missing something?