If congress tomorrow passes an abortion law permitting an abortion I think the court will see that as constitutional. I mean that. The decisions handed down are all saying the same thing that congress needs to decide the law.
The executive branch should not be deciding these things. The courts should not be making up the law. The public needs to decide what it wants out of congress. That lack of those decisions by the public means congress gets into mischief instead of the public’s business. That is why I prefer congress decide things that matter. Lets our critters grow up and care about this country properly and ethically.
Most “Power 5 Conference” coaches salaries are covered by privately donated/accumulated athletic funds which are separate entities from the university. Not under direct university control. Probably the only thing the state/university might be on the hook for is healthcare insurance and similar expenses.
And the Gov doesn’t fill up “The Big House” every weekend to the tune of 100k plus attendance and generating over $12M in ticket sales per game (average ticket is $128 per Seat Geek). Chances are the coach is way more popular than the Gov too especially after being that other university 2 years in a row.
You can call it misplaced priorities but it is how are society is wired.
Commerce Clause of the US Constitution is quite specific in stating interstate commerce is exclusively a federal matter. If the courts want Congress to write the complete details of each and every law, then the justices are required to personally prepare each and every legal interpretation they issue–with NOTHING left out. If there should be ANYTHING left out of a legal interpretation by any court, then that decision is (per the Supreme Court ) null and void retroactively. The decision SHALL be relitigated in its entirety given the failure(s) by the court(s). All I am doing is applying the Supreme Court’s own requirements on the Supreme Court. Watch how fast the courts CLAIM they do NOT have to do THAT.
I suppose it could be called The Pottery Barn Rule: you broke it, you pay for it.
The court said the dispute could continue in state court for now, a move that could chill workers’ decisions to strike for fear that unions would now have to face potentially costly litigation in state court for misconduct during federally protected strikes…
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority that included two of the court’s liberal members…“the union took affirmative steps to endanger Glacier’s property,” rather than “reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk,” the conduct at issue is arguably “not protected by the” National Labor Relations Act, Barrett wrote.
She will regret writing those words. Now, stockholders can go after management when deals to boost the compensation of mgmt reduce the assets of stockholders because mgmt failed to take “reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk” to the stockholders. They will have a Supreme Court decision on their side. The rules apply to mgmt as well as union employees–because both are “employees of the business”.
That is why we see management proposals on proxy statements, like the one I saw recently, to shield members of the Board from a fiduciary responsibility standard for their decisions as Board members. The “JCs” clearly think the sole purpose of the corporation is to enrich the “JCs”, by any means, and the shareholders should have nothing to say about it.
The lawyers then add a federal “conspiracy to commit fraud” charge to their lawsuit against the company–and request a federal criminal investigation against management.
Well, you left out the first part. The union “affirmatively” took steps to encourage the trashing of company equipment. That’s quite different than making a bad business decision.