Huh? That’s the exact same link as the post’s.
MicroWave
joined 1 year ago
167
Samuel Alito and German rightwing aristocrat linked to US anti-abortion activist
(www.theguardian.com)
372
Joe Biden is bailing out Papaw's steel plant in JD Vance’s hometown. Vance is trying to stop him.
(www.motherjones.com)
162
Harris leads Trump in Pennsylvania — and two bellwether PA counties — exclusive poll finds
(www.usatoday.com)
FWIW the most recent analysis I came across from a law professor makes me think the emergence of the "major questions doctrine" is more concerning:
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the US Supreme Court will decide whether to overrule one of its most frequently cited precedents—its 1984 opinion in Chevron v. NRDC. The decision in Loper may change the language that lawyers use in briefs and professors use in class, but is unlikely to significantly affect case outcomes involving interpretation of the statutes that agencies administer. In practice, it’s the court’s new major questions doctrine announced in 2021 that could fundamentally change how agencies operate.
…
I am much more concerned about the court’s 2021 decision to create the “major questions doctrine” and to apply it in four other cases than I am about the effects of a potential reversal of Chevron in Loper. Lower courts are beginning to rely on the major questions doctrine as the basis to overturn scores of agency decisions. That doctrine has potential to make it impossible for any agency to take any significant action.
Good call. Thanks for letting me know.
Kudos for doing additional research and sharing it with sources!
Standing is a specific legal term that defines whether a party is allowed to sue, and injury is also a legal term in this case. Cornell Law School has a great intro on the legal requirements to establish standing using a 3-part test:
- The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
- There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
- It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury.
In this case, seems to be the Supreme Court is skeptical that these doctors have satisfied this 3-part standing test, especially the injury in fact one. If SCOTUS decides that these doctors don't have standing, then the lawsuit is dismissed.
From the article:
No states have made such proposals or actions on restricting access to Opill, but the concern stems from the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022, which reversed Roe v. Wade and overturned the constitutional right to an abortion.
and:
But these examples have not set a precedent for what type of authority states may have to restrict access to an FDA-approved medication, Gupta said.
When it comes to Opill, “many states also allow pharmacists to refuse to participate in ‘health care’ that they find morally objectionable. This could include providing individuals with Opill even though it is OTC,” she said. “Legal approval and actual access are two distinct issues, with the latter influenced by a broader set of factors including state policies, healthcare practices, and socio-economic determinants of health.”
And I appreciate your kind words!
The CNN article just updated to remove the part about the required 6% and I've updated the summary to match.
You may be right it's negotiable, but this lawsuit happened because sellers felt they didn't have a choice:
The NAR had required homesellers to include the compensation for agents when placing a listing on a multiple listing service. Although NAR has long said commissions are negotiable and that the structure helped making housing more affordable for buyers, critics have long argued that the fees were expected and homesellers felt they would lose buyers if they didn’t offer them.
...
Individual sellers often feel powerless to negotiate a better deal for themselves, given the risk that offering lower commissions could cause brokers to steer buyers to other properties, said Robert Braun, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s antitrust practice.
Oh you mean the post summary. Yeah, that's the article's verbatim linked URL. Check the article's source and see for yourself.
In any case, thanks for pointing that out. I've stripped the tracker link and updated the post summary portion.