A divided federal appeals court on Friday declared unconstitutional two south Florida laws that banned therapists from offering conversion therapy to children struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In a 2-1 decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with two therapists who said the laws in the city of Boca Raton and Palm Beach County violated their free speech rights.
...
Republican President Donald Trump appointed both judges in Friday's majority.
this "reasoning" would guarantee a failing grade in any law class
The restrictions are based on risk. Its health professionals who determine the risk with Cuomo then limiting venues based on their recommendations.
Gorsuch conveniently forgets to mention theaters and sports venues. He gives the one sided argument of open grocery and retail stores where risk is much lower.
The Third Circuit Court killed Trump's latest attempt to subvert the PA presidential election.
Comments that stand out are :
The Campaign's claims have no merit.
The District Court ended these volleys ... (the many complaints being submitted and re-submitted)
We commend the District Court for its fast, fair, patient handling of this demanding litigation.
In other words, these bs complains have been trying on our patience.
The Trump campaign responded they will appeal SC. Which was always their judicial endgame. Hoping the Trump appointees will complete a quid pro quo by subverting the election.
The Third Circuit Court killed Trump's latest attempt to subvert the PA presidential election.
Comments that stand out are :
The Campaign's claims have no merit.
The District Court ended these volleys ... (the many complaints being submitted and re-submitted)
We commend the District Court for its fast, fair, patient handling of this demanding litigation.
In other words, these bs complains have been trying on our patience.
The Trump campaign responded they will appeal SC. Which was always their judicial endgame. Hoping the Trump appointees will complete a quid pro quo by subverting the election.
Yes, that was always the plan. How quickly could they get there though? What other steps would they have to go through before they can bring this to SC?
IF they make it to SC, and IF the SC decides to hear them, this will be very interesting. On its merits they don't really have a case, but will Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett deliver for their Leader? If so, we will have a massive constitutional crisis on our hands, but if not what would that mean for Trumps standing with his base and within the GOP? And what would that do to the Georgia run-offs?
I for one would like to see this case make it to the SCOTUS, because it will make a lot of things very clear.
Yes, that was always the plan. How quickly could they get there though? What other steps would they have to go through before they can bring this to SC?
No other steps. This is it. The step after their circuit appeals court fail is the SC.
Yes, that was always the plan. How quickly could they get there though? What other steps would they have to go through before they can bring this to SC?
No other steps. This is it. The step after their circuit appeals court fail is the SC.
Loving it! I hope the SC decides to hear the case and doesn't cop out on some technicality.
Can they appeal as of right or must they petition for Cert?
Asked
Googled
Answered
The most common way for a case to reach the Supreme Court is on appeal from a circuit court. A party seeking to appeal a decision of a circuit court can file a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. "Certiorari" is a Latin word meaning "to inform", in the sense that the petition informs the Court of the request for review.
The Trump case has shown in state and federal courts as absolutely lacking in proof, frivolous. They've been desperately court shopping in trying to find even one sympathetic judge. No luck so far, even with this appeal panel composed of three Republican nominated judges, one by Trump.
It would be extremely embarrassing, very sad, should the SC accept this. Is SC willing to be widely known as a joke by the reputable judiciaries in the world? Many years ago the SC was known for its gravitas, a reputable body, that other judiciaries looked for ideas when deciding difficult cases.
The exception would be if they accept this solely to reinforce that the Trump's lawyers are frivolous and that as members of the bar they need to stop doing so.
The Trump case has shown in state and federal courts as absolutely lacking in proof, frivolous. They've been desperately court shopping in trying to find even one sympathetic judge. No luck so far, even with this appeal panel composed of three Republican nominated judges, one by Trump.
It would be extremely embarrassing, very sad, should the SC accept this. Is SC willing to be widely known as a joke by the reputable judiciaries in the world? Many years ago the SC was known for its gravitas, a reputable body, that other judiciaries looked for ideas when deciding difficult cases.
The exception would be if they accept this solely to reinforce that the Trump's lawyers are frivolous and that as members of the bar they need to stop doing so.
agreed. merely accepting the case would be a travesty.
The Trump case has shown in state and federal courts as absolutely lacking in proof, frivolous. They've been desperately court shopping in trying to find even one sympathetic judge. No luck so far, even with this appeal panel composed of three Republican nominated judges, one by Trump.
It would be extremely embarrassing, very sad, should the SC accept this. Is SC willing to be widely known as a joke by the reputable judiciaries in the world? Many years ago the SC was known for its gravitas, a reputable body, that other judiciaries looked for ideas when deciding difficult cases.
The exception would be if they accept this solely to reinforce that the Trump's lawyers are frivolous and that as members of the bar they need to stop doing so.
agreed. merely accepting the case would be a travesty.
Why? The President of the United States has said he packed the SC because he needed them to win the election. It would be good if his three judges would be given a chance to show us where they really stand. If they do not hear this case they are cowards.
And by the way, if you think this SC is a reputable body around the world you should think about this recent verdict on Covid measures by Gov Cuomo, or Citizens United. They are a bunch of conservative, partisan hacks. We should blow up the SC as soon as we have an opportunity to do so. They will do more harm than good.
The Trump case has shown in state and federal courts as absolutely lacking in proof, frivolous. They've been desperately court shopping in trying to find even one sympathetic judge. No luck so far, even with this appeal panel composed of three Republican nominated judges, one by Trump.
It would be extremely embarrassing, very sad, should the SC accept this. Is SC willing to be widely known as a joke by the reputable judiciaries in the world? Many years ago the SC was known for its gravitas, a reputable body, that other judiciaries looked for ideas when deciding difficult cases.
The exception would be if they accept this solely to reinforce that the Trump's lawyers are frivolous and that as members of the bar they need to stop doing so.
agreed. merely accepting the case would be a travesty.
Why? The President of the United States has said he packed the SC because he needed them to win the election. It would be good if his three judges would be given a chance to show us where they really stand. If they do not hear this case they are cowards.
And by the way, if you think this SC is a reputable body around the world you should think about this recent verdict on Covid measures by Gov Cuomo, or Citizens United. They are a bunch of conservative, partisan hacks. We should blow up the SC as soon as we have an opportunity to do so. They will do more harm than good.
I'm not getting your point. Who thinks the SC is reputable? And it would still be a travesty if Trump's crew took the case. A travesty among many.
Why? The President of the United States has said he packed the SC because he needed them to win the election. It would be good if his three judges would be given a chance to show us where they really stand. If they do not hear this case they are cowards.
And by the way, if you think this SC is a reputable body around the world you should think about this recent verdict on Covid measures by Gov Cuomo, or Citizens United. They are a bunch of conservative, partisan hacks. We should blow up the SC as soon as we have an opportunity to do so. They will do more harm than good.
Trump and anyone else who thought that the Supreme Court justices he appointed would have any "loyalty" to him after he lost, are clueless. Trump himself would be the first one to turn his back on a "loser" like that. If they choose NOT to take the case, that in itself is a rejection of Trump.
The only reason for them to take the case would be in order to set some boundaries on federal court involvement in state elections. With this court, I don't think that kind of case would end well. While the immediate result (telling Trump it's over) would be applauded on the Left, the longer-term implications could be undesirable. Any limitation on Federal jurisdiction over state elections could be problematic for dealing with voting rights enforcement in the future.
The only thing before the Court was a Motion to allow the Trump Campaign to file a Second Amended Complaint. The lower Courts rejected that for two reasons. SCOTUS could reverse and tell the District Court to allow the filing of an Amended Complaint. Pennsylvania would then have time to respond to the Amended Complaint and move to dismiss. That would be granted by the District Court, upheld by the Circuit and could then be appealed again to SCOTUS.
And back and forth and up and down. In the meantime the Electore will meet and vote and the litigation will become moot.
I thought we could use a thread keeping track of judicial opinions that clearly were influenced by Trump appointees.