|
Mr. Nice! posted:
It'd be really weird if they decide "the Federal government can't have vaccination mandates but all those other mandates we upheld are ok." Since the current SCOTUS has handed down decisions that go as far as citing Jacobs, the OG vaccine mandate case, this is more just another case of the 5th Circuit being the right wing's rubber stamp for stupid bullshit (and why these lawsuits are always filed in the 5th). Piell posted:SCOTUS has been slapping down vaccine mandate cases 6-3 in favor of the mandate, I wouldn't be super worried about this Alito's one of those 3 though, isn't he?
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Opinion(s) about to drop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
Only opinion is Miss. v. Tenn - water rights case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/143orig_1qm1.pdf Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Nov 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
 Opinion! Warming up with a unanimous interstate conflict that no one not in Mississippi or Tennessee cares about.MISSISSIPPI v. TENNESSEE ET AL. TLDR: Under “equitable apportionment,” the Supreme Court allocates rights to a disputed interstate water resource between the States. Mississippi contends that it has sovereign ownership of all groundwater beneath its surface, so equitable apportionment ought not apply. The Supreme Court disagrees at least with respect to groundwater that flows between states. Holding / Majority Opinion (Roberts) Hundreds of feet beneath Memphis lies one of the City’s most valuable resources: the Middle Claiborne Aquifer. Workers discovered the aquifer in 1886 while drilling a well for the Bohlen-Huse Ice Company. Ever since, water pumped from the aquifer has provided Memphis with an abundant supply of clean, affordable drinking water. The Middle Claiborne Aquifer underlies other States too, including Mississippi. This case began in 2014 when Mississippi invoked our original jurisdiction and sought leave to file a bill of complaint against Tennessee. Mississippi alleges that Tennessee’s pumping has taken hundreds of billions of gallons of water that were once located beneath Mississippi. It seeks at least $615 million in damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. … [The aquifer] underlies portions of eight States in the Mississippi River Basin: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. Many of these States, including Mississippi and Tennessee, draw significant amounts of groundwater from the aquifer. To extract water from an aquifer, people drill wells. Pumps then draw water to the surface, where it is processed and piped to customers. Pumping does not just bring water to the surface; it also lowers water pressure at the site of the well. Water is naturally drawn to this area of lower pressure. This, in turn, “causes a pattern of lower or depressed water levels around the wells.”..The City of Memphis, through its public utility, the Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division (MLGW), pumps approximately 120 million gallons of groundwater from the Middle Claiborne Aquifer each day...Some of these wells are located just a few miles from the Mississippi-Tennessee border, though all are drilled straight down such that none crosses the physical border between the States. MLGW’s pumping contributes to a cone of depression that underlies both the City of Memphis and DeSoto County, Mississippi. Mississippi argues that MLGW’s pumping has altered the historic flow of groundwater within the Middle Claiborne Aquifer. Mississippi concedes that some water naturally flows from the part of the aquifer beneath Mississippi to the part beneath Tennessee. But only to the extent of some 30 to 60 feet per year. Mississippi contends that MLGW’s pumping has substantially hastened this existing flow, allowing Memphis to take billions of gallons of groundwater that otherwise would have remained under Mississippi for thousands of years. … Mississippi’s complaint alleges that MLGW “has forcibly siphoned into Tennessee hundreds of billions of gallons of high quality groundwater owned by Mississippi.” It says that MLGW’s “mechanical pumping” is to blame and that the “groundwater taken by Defendants from within Mississippi’s borders would have never under normal, natural circumstances been drawn into Tennessee.”This “wrongful taking,” the State contends, “is evidenced by a substantial drop in pressure and corresponding drawdown of stored groundwater” in northwest Mississippi, and by a cone of depression extending miles into its territory. As a result, Mississippi says, it has to drill its own wells deeper to access the aquifer, and use more electricity to pump water to the surface. Mississippi claims an absolute “ownership” right to all groundwater beneath its surface—even after that water has crossed its borders. It argues that Tennessee’s pumping thus amounts to a tortious taking of property, and it seeks at least $615 million in damages. Mississippi expressly disclaims equitable apportionment, arguing that the “fundamental premise of this Court’s equitable apportionment jurisprudence—that each of the opposing States has an equality of right to use the waters at issue—does not apply to this dispute.” Equitable apportionment aims to produce a fair allocation of a shared water resource between two or more States. The doctrine’s “guiding principle” is that States “have an equal right to make a reasonable use” of a shared water resource. We pioneered the doctrine in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46. Since then, we have often applied it to interstate rivers and streams. We have also applied the doctrine to disputes over interstate river basins, see Florida v. Georgia, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018), and in situations where the pumping of groundwater has affected the flow of interstate surface waters, see Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U. S. 1, 14 (1995). We have even applied the doctrine to anadromous fish—such as Chinook salmon and steelhead trout—that migrate between the Pacific Ocean and spawning grounds in the Columbia-Snake River system, “travel[ing] through several States during their lifetime.” Mississippi correctly observes that we have never considered whether equitable apportionment applies to interstate aquifers. Confronted as we are with this matter of first impression, we resist general propositions and focus our analysis on whether equitable apportionment of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer would be “sufficiently similar” to past applications of the doctrine to warrant the same treatment. We conclude that it would. First, we have applied equitable apportionment only when transboundary resources were at issue. The Middle Claiborne Aquifer’s “multistate character” seems beyond dispute. Mississippi concedes that the “geologic formation in which the groundwater is stored straddles two states.” ... Also pertinent is that the Middle Claiborne Aquifer contains water that flows naturally between the States. All of our equitable apportionment cases have concerned such water. … Finally, it is clear that actions in Tennessee “reach[] through the agency of natural laws” to affect the portion of the aquifer that underlies Mississippi. For these reasons, we hold that the waters of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer are subject to the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment. Mississippi contends that it has sovereign ownership of all groundwater beneath its surface, so equitable apportionment ought not apply. We see things differently. It is certainly true that “each State has full jurisdiction over the lands within its borders, including the beds of streams and other waters.” But such jurisdiction does not confer unfettered “ownership or control” of flowing interstate waters themselves. Thus, we have “consistently denied” the proposition that a State may exercise exclusive ownership or control of interstate “waters flowing within her boundaries.” Mississippi argues that our decision in Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann, 569 U. S. 614 (2013), supports its position. We disagree. Tarrant concerned the interpretation of an interstate compact. We held that the compact did not authorize the party States to “cross each other’s boundaries to access a shared pool of water.” Our decision turned on the language of the compact and background principles of contract law. We did not consider equitable apportionment, because the affected States had taken it upon themselves to negotiate a compact that determined their respective rights to the resource in question. To the extent Tarrant stands for the broader proposition that one State may not physically enter another to take water in the absence of an express agreement, that principle is not implicated here. The parties have stipulated that all of Tennessee’s wells are drilled straight down and do not cross the Mississippi-Tennessee border. ... We conclude that the waters contained in the Middle Claiborne Aquifer are subject to equitable apportionment. We therefore overrule Mississippi’s exceptions and adopt the Special Master’s recommendation to dismiss the bill of complaint. After recommending that this Court dismiss Mississippi’s suit, the Special Master went on to recommend that we grant the State leave to file an amended complaint seeking equitable apportionment. We decline to decide whether Mississippi should be granted such leave, because the State has never sought it. As Mississippi itself emphasizes—literally—it has “not yet requested equitable apportionment.” Nor can we assume Mississippi will do so. Mississippi’s initial pleadings in this case disavowed equitable apportionment entirely. ... Mississippi has failed to show that it is entitled to relief. We therefore overrule Mississippi’s exceptions to the Special Master’s report, sustain Tennessee’s, and dismiss the case. It is so ordered. Lineup: Unanimous. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/143orig_1qm1.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
ulmont posted:
Looks good
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
this is actually enormously important and also enormously boring water rights are kind of a big deal, and there are a lot of aquifers that do not respect state boundaries on a quick skim seems rightly decided
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
Clean drinking water is going to cause a whole lot of conflict in the coming years unless a lot of countries get their poo poo together before then. Activity like desalination is expensive and our idiot country will rip itself apart long before it'd elect a government that would build that sort of infrastructure or take any other actions to fix the issue. IE: Stop growing so many loving almonds or building cities in deserts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Clean drinking water is going to cause a whole lot of conflict in the coming years unless a lot of countries get their poo poo together before then. Activity like desalination is expensive and our idiot country will rip itself apart long before it'd elect a government that would build that sort of infrastructure or take any other actions to fix the issue. IE: Stop growing so many loving almonds or building cities in deserts. no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
Household use: 100 gallons Drinking: 10 gallons Growing almonds: 100,000 gallons Somebody who is good with budgeting help me, my family is dying of thirst.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Household use: 100 gallons Get rid of the people and you can grow 0.1% more almonds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 04:05
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:this is actually enormously important and also enormously boring GreyjoyBastard posted:on a quick skim seems rightly decided
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 04:06
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Household use: 100 gallons Cattle uses more than twice as much water as almonds do, and has half the economic value. The only reason we focus on one and not the other is because Americans love meat and hate almond eating / drinking liberals. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-04-13/cows-suck-up-more-of-california-s-water-than-almonds
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
What was Mississippi even trying to do there? It sounds like they didn’t have much of a case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 07:02
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Cattle uses more than twice as much water as almonds do, and has half the economic value. The only reason we focus on one and not the other is because Americans love meat and hate almond eating / drinking liberals.  The vilification of almonds is a major pet peeve of mine (and I don't even like them). They are a pretty wasteful crop of course, but there are far worse water drains out there that don't see nearly the same amount of scrutiny. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 10:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What was Mississippi even trying to do there? It sounds like they didn’t have much of a case. They had $650 million reasons to give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 13:34
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Cattle uses more than twice as much water as almonds do, and has half the economic value. The only reason we focus on one and not the other is because Americans love meat and hate almond eating / drinking liberals. why are they trying to raise cattle in california, the entire upper middle of the country is a giant grazing pasture e: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017Census_Irrigation_and_WaterManagement.pdf the difference in irrigation use is pretty shocking FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Nov 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:why are they trying to raise cattle in california, the entire upper middle of the country is a giant grazing pasture I just listened to this and it may help answer that question: https://soundcloud.com/farm-to-taber-podcast/lucy-maude-ranching-drag
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
JordanKai posted:
Yeah the almonds are the problem, when every supermarket in the country has massive aisles of beef for sale. I'm always amazed at just how much beef is everywhere. Americans take it for granted as a norm, but it is so crazy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:I just listened to this and it may help answer that question: https://soundcloud.com/farm-to-taber-podcast/lucy-maude-ranching-drag this is a really neat listen so far and a bunch of the other episodes look super interesting, but as an answer to my question this episode doesn't seem to directly address why california uses five times the water per acre as loving nebraska but houses a third as many beef cattle unless it's just jawdropping mismanagement driven by pastoral romanticism like I'm not sure it all can be chalked up to bay area coders taking a break from their weekday engineer cosplay to engage in a weekend session of horny cowboy cosplay
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:this is a really neat listen so far and a bunch of the other episodes look super interesting, but as an answer to my question this episode doesn't seem to directly address why california uses five times the water per acre as loving nebraska but houses a third as many beef cattle unless it's just jawdropping mismanagement driven by pastoral romanticism Peaceful Anarchy fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Nov 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:this is a really neat listen so far and a bunch of the other episodes look super interesting, but as an answer to my question this episode doesn't seem to directly address why california uses five times the water per acre as loving nebraska but houses a third as many beef cattle unless it's just jawdropping mismanagement driven by pastoral romanticism Ah, sorry - I read your question as more about the "raising cattle" part of the issue than the "in California" part. But really, people raise cattle in California and other water-scarce reasons for the same reason they raise cattle in other places in the US that are better suited for the purpose but still do a lovely job of it: because they're/we're too culturally attached to it as an identity to not do it even where it doesn't make any sense. Which is what that episode is about. IOW, "jawdropping mismanagement driven by pastoral romanticism" is pretty close to the mark if not a total bullseye. Lemniscate Blue fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Nov 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:Ah, sorry - I read your question as more about the "raising cattle" part of the issue than the "in California" part. But really, people raise cattle in California and other water-scarce reasons for the same reason they raise cattle in other places in the US that are better suited for the purpose but still do a lovely job of it: because they're/we're too culturally attached to it as an identity to not do it even where it doesn't make any sense. Which is what that episode is about. yeah it wasn't gonna be as blunt but when I saw how much more water california uses I got that sinking feeling that the truth was just gonna turn out to be "X thing (in this case, cattle production) gets done extraordinarily badly in one place (in this case California), this gets framed online as the only way it's done anywhere because of anger maximalism on the internet, so it's then understood as being equally incredibly wasteful everywhere" and yep it's just california money doing california poo poo and acting like there's no other way
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:yeah it wasn't gonna be as blunt but when I saw how much more water california uses I got that sinking feeling that the truth was just gonna turn out to be "X thing (in this case, cattle production) gets done extraordinarily badly in one place (in this case California), this gets framed online as the only way it's done anywhere because of anger maximalism on the internet, so it's then understood as being equally incredibly wasteful everywhere" and yep it's just california money doing california poo poo and acting like there's no other way The SCOTUS thread probably isn't the greatest place, but the senior water rights holders of most of the Ag water are basically privileged beyond belief and dates back decades or even a century or more back to the Union Pacific days, it's really something special on it's own vs "California money", probably closer to the old giant slave-owning estates in the South. I haven't personally read Cadillac Desert but it's been a very frequent suggestion for the past decade+ when the subject has come up here. I'm sure at some point the water rights situation in the American West will end up in a conflict between the state legislatures and the current judiciary though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Pervis posted:I'm sure at some point the water rights situation in the American West will end up in a conflict between the state legislatures and the current judiciary though. Sounds like a Wonderful thing to look forward to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
Pervis posted:The SCOTUS thread probably isn't the greatest place, but the senior water rights holders of most of the Ag water are basically privileged beyond belief and dates back decades or even a century or more back to the Union Pacific days, it's really something special on it's own vs "California money", probably closer to the old giant slave-owning estates in the South. I haven't personally read Cadillac Desert but it's been a very frequent suggestion for the past decade+ when the subject has come up here. It’s also worth noting that the reason why the Central Valley is so fertile is that it was literally wetlands before the waterways were cut up for irrigation. There is a tremendous amount of water in California. A whole rear end inland lake should drive home the point that the water distribution is entirely man made and thus can be man re-made. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1466073790081810435?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
This tweet thread doesn't include Roberts' equating our fetal viability standards to those of North Korea and China. Just calling balls and strikes, of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1466078049905041409?s=21 https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1466077938688921601?s=21 This thread has been covering on the morning as well. Lots of details in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOQrrbH_w4 The live stream is great if you want to hear really good arguments from the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Solicitor General that just get completely ignored by Alito/Barret/et al
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Any reason why they're doing Mississippi's and not the Texas one? Asking for a friend (and myself) since we don't normally follow this closely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
Lord Awkward posted:Any reason why they're doing Mississippi's and not the Texas one? Asking for a friend (and myself) since we don't normally follow this closely. Texas law is an end run around Roe — one weird trick to avoid SC review! Libs hate it! Mississippi law is a full on frontal attack on Roe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
Roberts is right: if the issue is choice, viability has nothing to do with it. Therefore a woman should always have the right to choose an abortion at any time. His framing of "isn't 15 weeks enough time to choose?" is so unbelievably stupid. Under that same argument, you could limit voting to only people under 33 years old. "Isn't 15 years enough time to vote?" Imagine asking this question about any other right. What a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Roberts is right: if the issue is choice, viability has nothing to do with it. Hey now, he isn't Alito. Roberts is just banal evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Lord Awkward posted:Any reason why they're doing Mississippi's and not the Texas one? Asking for a friend (and myself) since we don't normally follow this closely. The court agreed to hear the Mississippi case last year (once Rapey McBeerface and Handmaid's Tale cemented enough votes to overturn Roe), so that's why it's being heard now. The Texas law was basically a given an expedited hearing, but that ruling isn't out yet. Given how the questions today went, SCOTUS will probably say the Texas law is unconstitutional because of the "constitutional Calvinball" mechanism is uses to bypass judicial review (to prevent California from passing an identical law targeting gun owners or something), but they won't say poo poo about the abortion part of it, since it won't matter when they overturn Roe next June.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Roberts is not a moron, sadly he's the exact opposite and gets lots of idiot Dems to look at him and go "oh look how reasonable he is" as Roberts leads the judicial efforts to turn us into a evangelical theocracy. He's the kind of person who if they'd been president instead of Trump they'd still be in office and the country would be even further past the point of no return. Roe is absolutely getting overturned and you can be certain that contraceptives will be targeted immediately afterwards (by the states that aren't already doing it).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Roberts is not a moron, sadly he's the exact opposite and gets lots of idiot Dems to look at him and go "oh look how reasonable he is" as Roberts leads the judicial efforts to turn us into a evangelical theocracy. He's the kind of person who if they'd been president instead of Trump they'd still be in office and the country would be even further past the point of no return. Does Roberts even have much influence over the court any more? Once Barrett got appointed, there were a solid 5 votes in favor of whatever insane conservative ideas made it in front of the court, so all Roberts can do is make the really bad decisions 5-4 instead of 6-3, or maybe appeal to Gorsuch's weird libertarian streak to get an occasional 5-4 decision saying it's illegal to put homosexuals in concentration camps or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
I don't really see how overturning Roe would hurt the GOP or reinvigorate the Democrats. Let's look at the groups with a stake in this Blue state liberals: will be offended at how rude it is, but they won't be affected personally and it will just be another reason to mock all the stupid troglodytes who just need to move out of Mississippi already, like they do for PPACA and like they will do for the pre-k program since Democrats are designing it on purpose to be rejected by red states. Will probably stop caring after 5 minutes just like when RBG was replaced with a handmaid blessed by Dianne Feinstein Affluent red state liberals: will be slightly personally affected but it's not a big deal for them to take a long weekend and get it done in a blue state, maybe see a Broadway play the next day or whatever Poor red state whites: already used to Democrats telling them to get hosed unless they learn to code and move to California, unlikely to go back to the Democratic party that now has one more reason to sneer at them. Also no point, Democrats have a trifecta at the federal level and refuse to pass a Roe v Wade law so voting for them is clearly pointless even if you do want abortion rights Poor red state PoC: "We don't have to protect their abortion rights, what are they gonna do, vote Republican?  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't really see how overturning Roe would hurt the GOP or reinvigorate the Democrats. Let's look at the groups with a stake in this There might be an impact on the number of "moderate" voters for the GOP a few years down the line, as the consequences of overturning Roe get more clear, but by that point, SCOTUS will have allowed more than enough voter suppression and generally undermined democracy enough that it's not going to have any impact on what the GOP actually controls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't really see how overturning Roe would hurt the GOP or reinvigorate the Democrats. Let's look at the groups with a stake in this I keep thinking of that video of Biden telling a group of Hispanic voters “fine! You go vote for Trump then!” when they said they were unhappy with his promise to keep deporting people with criminal records. I’m saddened and sickened by this and I don’t know what to do, because there’s nothing I can do about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
azflyboy posted:Does Roberts even have much influence over the court any more? Roberts' influence has been to discredit the court entirely. It's clearly a governing body without any accountability, and the public recognizes that. The details of the votes and the reasoning get ignored by the courts themselves, so all that matters is the outcomes and how they impact the media perception.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 19:04
|
|