Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

A huge Supreme Court decision you never heard of

 
Old 05-16-2019, 05:34 AM
  #1  
Grumpy
MONARTOR
Thread Starter
 
Grumpy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2001
Location: What I know, is dwarfed by what I pretend to know
Posts: 194,305
Received 35 Likes on 16 Posts
Cruise-In 5-6-7-8 Veteran
St. Jude '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-10-'11-12-'13-'14-'15-'16-17-'18
NCM Sinkhole Donor

Default A huge Supreme Court decision you never heard of

By Peter Skurkiss
One of the things that separates leftists from normal people is their passion for political power. It is all-consuming. Among other things, this gives the Left the ability to plot and plan well in advance. This is clearly evidenced by leftists' patient march through American institutions. This was done not in one fell swoop, but step by step through the years. In solidifying their gains, the liberals are hyper-vigilant to any regression from what they've achieved in a way conservatives can only envy.

A recent little noticed U.S. Supreme Court decision illustrates this latter point. This was Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. In it, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Constitution doesn't permit a state to be sued by a private party without its consent in the court of a different state. So what's the big deal? The big deal is that the Franchise Board v. Hyatt overturned a 1979 Court decision to the contrary in Nevada v. Hall.

What puts more bite in the Franchise Board v. Hyatt decision is that Chief Justice John Roberts assigned Clarence Thomas to write the majority opinion. Thomas is an originalist more than he is a conservative. A Court conservative, at least how liberals would define one, would honor the principle of stare decisis. This means that once a decision is made, it stays made. Thomas instead approaches cases according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. He believes if an initial decision was wrong per the original intent of the Constitution, it should be overturned.

This has the four Court liberal dissenters — Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — in a tizzy. What has them and their soul mates throughout the liberal establishment in panic mode is not the particulars of the Franchise v. Hyatt case itself, but the fact that it overturned a precedent. As Justice Breyer said: "Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next."

Putting flesh on the bones of that complaint is Erwin Chermerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Berkeley Law School. Chermerinsky was the one who argued the case for Hyatt, the loser. He wrote that the decision was really about "how the Court is going to treat precedent when issues like abortion, affirmative action, and gay and lesbian rights return to the court."

The always alert liberal hive is reacting.
"The Right-Wing Supreme Court Is coming for Roe v. Wade," is the headline on Splinter.com. The Liberals are "warning us" that Roe is in "mortal danger," booms the Washington Post. The New York Times is rushing out an op-ed piece by a law professor. "The Supreme court made clear on Monday that Roe v. Wade may soon no longer be the law of the land," it begins.
There you have it. Liberals see much of the radical and anti-democratic social structure they forced on the country through the Court's blatant overreach threatened. This fear is compounded by the fact that the Left knows that President Trump is likely to have the opportunity to make two and perhaps three more appointments to the Supreme Court before he leaves office.

Most of the attention to Donald Trump's MAGA policies focuses on the revitalizing of America's economic base. But through his court appointments at various levels, the president is helping to make America's soul great again, hopefully returning us to normalcy.


Grumpy is online now  
Old 05-16-2019, 05:55 AM
  #2  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 111,261
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Bad law is now fair game for the SCOTUS....

there is a lot of liberal fascism to unwind...
owebo is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:43 AM
  #3  
birdsmith
CF Senior Member
 
birdsmith's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2006
Location: Japan
Posts: 3,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

It is common knowledge to conservatives (Liberals, not so much) that what liberals cannot win at the ballot box they instead attempt to have legislated through the courts. A HUGE driver of present-day American behavior is FEAR OF LAWSUIT. Whether the Christian baker won his case in court or not, the fact that some hypersensitive pantywaisted kooks were willing to sue rather than take their business down the street has instilled enough fear in the down-the-street baker's heart that he or she won't ever refuse service to anybody for any reason, anymore...

So now here we are. We live in a country where merely saying or doing something that offends or hurts somebody's precious little feelings can literally get you bankrupted. THAT is how the faith of the average American is now being tested-not that the government is directly coming to take your house or your possessions of to imprison you or do bodily harm because of what you believe (your "principles")-but rather that if you stand up for those principles by (perhaps) refusing service to someone whose behavior offends YOU, they could ruin you financially for the rest of your natural life. THAT is the effect that our out-of-control judiciary has over our lives, every day. Halfway around the world on a Navy ship I see it-can't call someone this or that name or get caught using some debatable slur-of-the-week, can't even look at anybody sideways anymore. Your employer will fire you so THEY don't get sued...

The slimy, scummy lawyers that make their greasy livings doing this to us do not make ANYTHING of any lasting benefit, they contribute absolutely nothing of value to our society. You get divorced? They step in and sue you. Disagreement at work? They sue you. Customer spills hot coffee on her lap? They sue you. Neighbor trips and falls in your yard? You get sued. Ralph Nader doesn't like that Corvair you bought? NOBODY's driving Corvairs anymore...

A Church pastor can't counsel somebody. They might get sued. If you run a business, it's not a matter of IF but rather WHEN you get sued. And God forbid we elect a President who is a businessman rather than one of lawyers that populate 95% of our government-we must DESTROY him NOW before he exposes ALL of us!!!!!!

I don't really know apart from Divine intervention how you reverse this. The legal class has so infested American everyday life with its impossibly labyrinthine regulations that NOBODY can do ANYTHING anymore without running between their diabolical crosshairs. No matter what it is that you want to do (ESPECIALLY if there is ANY possible or perceptible "risk" involved) there is somebody from the esteemed legal team of "You're too Rich" that is waiting to liberate you from your excessive wealth. This mentality has inexorably become a daily part of our lives, like a giant dingy stain on a nice white shirt.

Our kids can't pray in school. Because some angry lawyer said so. A businessman can't fire an unproductive worker. You can't open a business in America on a tight budget because you can not afford the safety and environmental equipment. The boss can't yell at anybody for fear of creating...God forbid...a HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT.

SO much of this asinine mentality is a by-product of bad court decisions that I cannot help but hope that maybe, JUST MAYBE, SOME good will come out of this...but in reality it took us over 50 years to get to this point, We threw God out of our schools, decided that killing unborn babies was an acceptable means of birth control, and recently decided that two dudes or two women could get "married". It ALL needs to be reversed, and until the REAL God becomes THIS country's God again we will just keep on sluggishly slouching down the path to inevitable Hell...

Matthew 23:4

Last edited by birdsmith; 05-16-2019 at 01:41 PM.
birdsmith is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:58 AM
  #4  
VetteGirlMA
CF Senior Member
 
VetteGirlMA's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2014
Location: MA
Posts: 687
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Going back and reviewing bad precedent is a good thing. I would love to see the court revisit US vs Miller since the case has become pretty much moot since it was decided in the 1930s.

But this is why I want to keep Trump in office to nominate more originalist judges rather than "the constitution means what it says I think it means today and maybe tomorrow it will mean something else" type of judges.
VetteGirlMA is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:25 AM
  #5  
69L46
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
69L46's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2000
Location: In the heart of Bulldog territory..
Posts: 27,720
Received 53 Likes on 33 Posts
2015 C3 of Year Finalist
St. Jude Donor '15-'16-'17-'18-‘19
Default

Three times a charm...

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/o...urprising-way/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In an already familiar 5-4 lineup, the Supreme Court has overruled Nevada v. Hall, which for 40 years has stood for the proposition that states generally lack sovereign immunity in one another’s courts. The new decision vindicates a legal position long held by conservatives, but it appears to endorse a loose approach to finding structural principles in the Constitution. The ruling also adopts a less than exacting view of stare decisis — hardly surprising for Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion of the court, but odd given that other members of the majority, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, have expressed greater concern for precedent. Time will tell whether Hyatt has set the stage for overrulings to come.

Hyatt involved a long-running suit by a Nevada resident against the Franchise Tax Board of California. The plaintiff, who filed suit in Nevada court, alleged a number of torts and initially won a huge damages award that has been whittled down through years of litigation. In fact, Hyatt is a “threepeater,” in that it has now reached the justices on three separate occasions. One possible explanation for this remarkable distinction is that there do not appear to be many cases involving successful state-court suits against other states. As a result, the justices have a hard time getting access to the sort of federal-courts questions that Hyatt tees up. The juiciest of those questions had to do with state sovereign immunity: Can a state like California assert sovereign immunity to defeat a lawsuit in the courts of another state?

In Nevada v. Hall, the Supreme Court answered “No.” But that was in 1979, before the Rehnquist Court had breathed new life into the doctrine of state sovereign immunity. In later decades, the court repeatedly distinguished Hall and expanded state immunity. And Hall is in some ways an awkward fit alongside those newer rulings. If states generally benefit from sovereign immunity in neutral federal courts, it is hard to see why they shouldn’t have the same advantage in the more partial courts of other states. As a result, many have assumed that Hall represented little more than a relic of an older view of state prerogatives. On its face, Hyatt vindicates that long-conventional understanding.

Yet the more recent Rehnquist Court decisions had acknowledged a plausible rationale for Hall. Even if the federal government lacks authority to override state sovereign immunity in federal court, the Constitution may have left states free to override the immunity of other states. On that view, Hall actually vindicated an important aspect of state sovereignty — namely, the sovereign authority to recognize or disclaim common law and international law forms of sovereign immunity. And although such an authority might sound troublesome, experience suggests the opposite: After Hall, there has been no explosion of state-court suits aiming to overcome the sovereign immunity of other states.

In overruling Hall and expanding state sovereign immunity, the court’s opinion in Hyatt started with some foundational points. “The Constitution’s use of the term ‘States’ reflects” traditional immunities, famous founding-era figures are on record making absolutist-sounding statements about state sovereign immunity, and the Supreme Court’s curtailment of state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia prompted a popular backlash in the form of the 11th Amendment, which prohibits federal courts from hearing certain lawsuits against states. Yet the 11th Amendment by its terms does not apply to state-court suits. So, as in so many other sovereign immunity decisions, the historical recitation in the court’s decision ultimately served as the windup to an intuitive leap about what “makes sense.” As the court put it in Hyatt: “the spirited historical debate over Article III courts and the immediate reaction to Chisholm make little sense if the Eleventh Amendment were the only source of sovereign immunity and private suits against the States could already be brought in ‘partial, local tribunals.’”

True, sovereign immunity was once a matter of common law or comity that any state could choose to override. And, based on that fact, one might worry that the framers’ absolutist-sounding statements about state sovereign immunity weren’t actually so absolute. But the court insisted that the Constitution changed the old rule. To support that claim, the court offered a litany of constitutional provisions, such as a limit on state war powers, that on their face do not pertain to state sovereign immunity. The court posited that it would be “ahistorical literalism” to ignore these provisions, even though the court had adduced the provisions to fill a gap in its historical argument. Commentators have noted that Hyatt’s loose structural reasoning seems at odds with originalism and even resembles the position set out in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court drew on apparently unrelated constitutional provisions to establish a right to use contraceptives.

Hyatt’s willingness to rely on loose structural argumentation draws attention to recent generational changes in conservative legal thinking. The court cited important scholarship by Ann Woolhandler, James Pfander, Caleb Nelson, Bradford Clark and others, but neglected a bracing amicus brief by Will Baude and Steve Sachs. In short, Baude and Sachs argue that states should be free in their own courts to abrogate one another’s sovereign immunity but that any resulting judgments are generally unenforceable. That position could have pointed the way toward a more pragmatic rationale: If the Baude-and-Sachs solution of preserving Hall and combining it with a rule of non-enforceability would have been unworkable, then the court might have been justified in establishing a constitutional rule of state sovereign immunity as a way of implementing historical practices.

And what about stare decisis? True to form, Thomas’ opinion for the court did not go long on the importance of precedent. Instead, the court’s one-page discussion noted four factors: “the quality of the decision’s reasoning; its consistency with related decisions; legal developments since the decision; and reliance on the decision.” Treating the second and third factors as equivalent, the court quickly stated that the first three all supported overruling. That left reliance — but the court brushed that worry aside, too. True, some plaintiffs had relied on Hall, but “in virtually every case that overrules a controlling precedent, the party relying on that precedent will incur the loss of litigation expenses and a favorable decision below.” Notably, the court made no effort to satisfy one of the three criteria for overruling that Kavanaugh had emphasized during oral argument — namely, that there be “severe practical consequences” to retaining the precedent.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a brisk dissent — 13 pages against Thomas’ comparably succinct 18-page majority decision. The tone of the debate suggests that both sides viewed the stakes in this case as small. Though it overruled precedent on constitutional grounds, Hyatt is unlikely to affect many suits and so is more of a cleanup than a teardown. Still, Breyer did more than just dispute the historical record and invoke stare decisis. Recognizing that Hall itself had engendered little reliance, Breyer also pointed to concerns that arguably arise in every instance of overruling. “Each time the Court overrules a case,” Breyer noted, “the Court produces increased uncertainty.” Breyer’s argument here would have been stronger if he had weighed the uncertainty associated with overruling against the benefits, such as greater coherence and simplicity, that come from correcting anomalous precedents.

Breyer then offered a thinly veiled warning. After citing the stare decisis factors famously adduced in the important abortion-rights decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Breyer ominously observed, “Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.” The message here is not subtle. Casey was made possible by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has now retired. And Hyatt ignored the strong stare decisis requirements that marked Casey. So perhaps the “next” overruling will involve abortion rights — another longtime target of conservative opposition.

Or perhaps not. Breyer’s warning echoed Justice Thurgood Marshall’s 1991 dissent in Payne v. Tennessee, which likewise reacted to a divisive rejection of precedent. In words that Breyer could have borrowed, Marshall wrote that the Payne majority “ominously suggests that an even more extensive upheaval of this Court’s precedents may be in store.” Marshall, too, was worried in part about the fate of abortion rights. And it is indeed natural to think that a cleanup today could generate a teardown tomorrow. But when the next case actually arrived, the court decided Casey — in favor of precedent.

69L46 is online now  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:46 AM
  #6  
Mr D.
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Mr D.'s Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2002
Location: Huntsville AL
Posts: 27,644
Received 228 Likes on 211 Posts
Default

Yea because it's always about abortion, affirmative action, and gays/lesbians.
Mr D. is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:50 AM
  #7  
glbeauchamp
CF Senior Member
 
glbeauchamp's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: Douglas County WI
Posts: 2,424
Received 110 Likes on 103 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by birdsmith View Post
It is common knowledge to conservatives (Liberals, not so much) that what liberals cannot win at the ballot box they instead attempt to have legislated through the courts. A HUGE driver of present-day American behavior is FEAR OF LAWSUIT. Whether the Christian baker won his case in court or not, the fact that some hypersensitive pantywaisted kooks were willing to sue rather than take their business down the street has instilled enough fear in the down-the-street baker's heart that he or she won't ever refuse service to anybody for any reason, anymore...

So now here we are. We live in a country where merely saying or doing something that offends or hurts somebody's precious little feelings can literally get you bankrupted. THAT is how the faith of the average American is now being tested-not that the government is directly coming to take your house or your possessions of to imprison you or do bodily harm because of what you believe (your "principles")-but rather that if you stand up for those principles by (perhaps) refusing service to someone whose behavior offends YOU, they could ruin you financially for the rest of your natural life. THAT is the effect that our out-of-control judiciary has over our lives, every day. Halfway around the world on a Navy ship I see it-can't call someone this or that name or get caught using some debatable slur-of-the-week, can't even look at anybody sideways anymore. Your employer will fire you so THEY don't get sued...

The slimy, scummy lawyers that make their greasy livings doing this to us do not make ANYTHING of any lasting benefit, they contribute absolutely nothing of value to our society. You get divorced? They step in and sue you. Disagreement at work? They sue you. Customer spills hot coffee on her lap? They sue you. Neighbor trips and falls in your yard? You get sued. Ralph Nader doesn't like that Corvair you bought? NOBODY's driving Corvairs anymore...

A Church pastor can't counsel somebody. They might get sued. If you run a business, it's not a matter of IF but rather WHEN you get sued. And God forbid we elect a President who is a businessman rather than one of lawyers that populate 95% of our government-we must DESTROY him NOW before he exposes ALL of us!!!!!!

I don't really know apart from Divine intervention how you reverse this. The legal class has so infested American everyday life with its impossibly labyrinthine regulations that NOBODY can do ANYTHING anymore without running between their diabolical crosshairs. No matter what it is that you want to do (ESPECIALLY if there is ANY possible or perceptible "risk" involved) there is somebody from the esteemed legal team of "You're too Rich" that is waiting to liberate you from your excessive wealth. This mentality has inexorably become a daily part of our lives, like a giant dingy stain on a nice white shirt.

Our kids can't pray in school. Because some angry lawyer said so. A businessman can't fire an unproductive worker. You can't open a business in America on a tight budget because you can not afford the safety and environmental equipment. The boss can't yell at anybody for fear of creating...God forbid...a HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT.

SO much of this asinine mentality is a by-product of bad court decisions that I cannot help but hope that maybe, JUST MAYBE, SOME good will come out of this...but in reality it took us over 50 years to get to this point, We threw God out of our schools, decided that killing unborn babies was an acceptable means of birth control, and recently decided that two dudes or two women could get "married". It ALL needs to be reversed, and until the REAL God becomes THIS country's God again we will just keep on sluggishly slouching down the path to inevitable Hell...

Luke 11:52

Well said Sir:
glbeauchamp is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:42 AM
  #8  
KenHorse
AOC = All Out Communist
Support Corvetteforum!
 
KenHorse's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2007
Location: Aurora, OR by way of Maui, HI. I have the heart of a Progressive - I keep it in a jar on my desk
Posts: 104,475
Received 1,006 Likes on 669 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13, '16-'17-'18
Default

Kavanaugh ain't the originalist nor the conservative many mistakenly think he is.

Don't expect him to be a friend when it comes to Roe V Wade......
KenHorse is online now  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:49 AM
  #9  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 111,261
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Originally Posted by KenHorse View Post
Kavanaugh ain't the originalist nor the conservative many mistakenly think he is.

Don't expect him to be a friend when it comes to Roe V Wade......


it it was all kabuki theatre by the establishment to get Kennedy part deux in under the radar....
owebo is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:59 AM
  #10  
TBIRD57
CF Senior Member
 
TBIRD57's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,548
Received 64 Likes on 55 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by VetteGirlMA View Post
Going back and reviewing bad precedent is a good thing. I would love to see the court revisit US vs Miller since the case has become pretty much moot since it was decided in the 1930s.

But this is why I want to keep Trump in office to nominate more originalist judges rather than "the constitution means what it says I think it means today and maybe tomorrow it will mean something else" type of judges.

imo precedent eventually becomes meaningless- in fact it then becomes
"the constitution means what it says i think it means today and tomorrow
it will mean something else"






TBIRD57 is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 12:00 PM
  #11  
69L46
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
69L46's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2000
Location: In the heart of Bulldog territory..
Posts: 27,720
Received 53 Likes on 33 Posts
2015 C3 of Year Finalist
St. Jude Donor '15-'16-'17-'18-‘19
Default

Originally Posted by TBIRD57 View Post
imo precedent eventually becomes meaningless- in fact it then becomes
"the constitution means what it says i think it means today and tomorrow
it will mean something else"

Those on the left agree with you.
69L46 is online now  
Old 05-16-2019, 12:37 PM
  #12  
glbeauchamp
CF Senior Member
 
glbeauchamp's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: Douglas County WI
Posts: 2,424
Received 110 Likes on 103 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by KenHorse View Post
Kavanaugh ain't the originalist nor the conservative many mistakenly think he is.

Don't expect him to be a friend when it comes to Roe V Wade......


Ya think the #metoos will like him then?
glbeauchamp is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 12:40 PM
  #13  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 111,261
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Originally Posted by glbeauchamp View Post
Ya think the #metoos will like him then?
The like Joey....
owebo is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:54 PM
  #14  
FunDriver
CF Senior Member
 
FunDriver's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2001
Location: Danville CA
Posts: 6,112
Received 131 Likes on 83 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by glbeauchamp View Post
Well said Sir:
Yes, good response.
FunDriver is online now  
Old 05-17-2019, 07:23 AM
  #15  
BobG
CF Senior Member
 
BobG's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2000
Location: kalifornia
Posts: 12,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Mr D. View Post
Yea because it's always about abortion, affirmative action, and gays/lesbians.
Those are some pretty wide planks on the liberal party's platform of oppression, perversion, and misery for the unwashed masses, so of course they will scream to high heaven should morality, honesty, freedom, and that silly old piece of paper we call the "Constitution" be applied to these issues.
BobG is offline  
Old 05-17-2019, 07:43 AM
  #16  
virtue4u
CF Senior Member
 
virtue4u's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Posts: 59,859
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by KenHorse View Post
Kavanaugh ain't the originalist nor the conservative many mistakenly think he is.

Don't expect him to be a friend when it comes to Roe V Wade......


He was Justice Kennedy's choice and a Bushy.
Trump chose him because, as Trump admitted, he was more moderate than other possible choices and hoped he would have an easy confirmation.

If we learned anything from the Dems in the Kavanaugh confirmation process, it is that Trump should have gone full hard core conservative.
Damn the torpedoes!
The same type of circus atmosphere will ensue no matter which justice Trump appoints.
Trump will go hard-core conservative if Ginsburg ever croaks.
virtue4u is offline  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:53 AM
  #17  
Z Factor
CF Senior Member
 
Z Factor's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2002
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 10,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by owebo View Post
Bad law is now fair game for the SCOTUS....

there is a lot of liberal fascism to unwind...
Not that I am a big proponent of the scotus looking to overturn previous decisions, but if something was decided incorrectly compared to what the original intent was, then is should be considered in some circumstances.

The irony of course will be the liberals criticism to claim conservatives of activism. In reality if a previous activist court created law, instead of using original intent to determine what was proper, they essentially would be overturning activism.
Z Factor is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: A huge Supreme Court decision you never heard of


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: