Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David Lat's avatar

Hello, hello? Is this thing on? I find it hard to believe that nobody has any opinions on this case. There’s no shortage of opinions on Twitter (even though this audience is far more well informed).

Expand full comment
Kaitlin Johnson's avatar

I'll go first! I heard about OJ from Advisory Opinions, and subscribed! I'm 15 and in high school and am just really interested in law and law school some day! :)

I remember from last term the CFPB case which really centered on severability. You saw a lot of justices emphasizing that strongly in a case that wasn't all that high-profile. However, setting themselves up as strong defenders of that doctrine set them up to be consistent when they (as I expect them to) say that the ACA's "tax" was unconstitutional but it is severable. It reminds me of how a few weeks ago one of the justices (I think Sotomayor?) wrote a dissent where she really tore into the Court for not following (I don't know the proper wording of this) stare decisis and not really telling everyone that they were making new precedent. I wonder if it's like the CFPB case where she was trying to set herself up as consistent on that particular doctrine, so that if the justices slip in "sorry we can't get rid of Roe bc stare decisis" it will make them look a little better?

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts