So chrys finally decided what he wanted from me in terms of addressing a number of this year's rulings. I thought it should be here instead of a faux awards thread so here it is so far:
Okay, let's run them down.
Glossip v Gross: I'm against the death penalty, but I haven't read the opinion so I don't know that I'd be aligned with the minority dissent.
Obergefell v. Hodges: I just spoke to that one in the post you mostly ignored.
King v. Burwell: I agree with the reasoning of Chief Justice Roberts. He wrote the opinion and the "liberals" who worry you joined it, along with Kennedy. He rightly noted the ambiguity in the law, read as those opposing the Affordable Healthcare Act would have it "...would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: I disagree with the majority on their reading of the law. Roberts is right. The term legislature isn't ambiguous and shouldn't be read as some catch-all. If people want to alter the power of the legislature let them do it through the legislature and not by expanding the definition of a word that isn't ambiguous in its historical usage, even if the broadening matches the sentiment behind laws attacking gerrymandering. And gerrymandering can be attacked without pulling the power reserved for the legislature, duly appointed by the people.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project: the Court was right. Scalia knew it and then turned and hid in the minority when he knew he the vote wouldn't ride on him.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz: I agree with the unanimous opinion of the Court.
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans: the majority was right. The government, in protecting speech, is not obligated to promote particular speech using its licenses. Interesting to see Thomas siding with those liberals. But he and they are right and the cautionary note by Alito is toothless since the government isn't, by failing to couple its authority in seal with a particular sentiment, dampening speech.
Zivotofsky v. Kerry: the Court was correct in striking the law. Another Thomas and Kennedy add-in. Roberts misstates what is happening. The never before belonged in an arrow aimed at the legislature's attempt to usurp the presidential authority and role. Thomas' answer to Scalia was pithy and on point.
Elonis v. United States: I disagree with the Court and side with the prosecutors over the reasonable reading of threatening language. Couching it in the pretense of therapy shouldn't have protected a man who could have written that "therapy" on his personal stationary. Instead he communicated it publicly and I think the intent is unmistakable. A vague and troubling ruling. I'll side with Thomas in dissent and note his complaint on the lack of clarity in the majority ruling as it pertains to standard.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores: I agree with the majority opinion. Thomas is mistaken.
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar: Roberts caps my thinking with his, "A state’s decision to elect judges does not compel it to compromise public confidence in their integrity."
Young v. United Parcel Service: Haven't read the opinion, but it seems with Alito on board, along with Roberts, this isn't a conservative/liberal rift.
Holt v. Hobbs: the entire Court is correct.
