Toggle sidebar

Trinity Lutheran vs. State of Mizzou

W

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
DvlDog4WVU said:
Sotamayor and Ginsburg are not going to rule in favor of Trinity. That's two.
Click to expand...
That SCOTUS blog seemed to imply Sotamayor was more interested in not issuing a ruling on the case, since the law has changed, than she was siding with the state. Could she possibly just sit out a decision?
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,688
1,758
113
WVUCOOPER said:
That SCOTUS blog seemed to imply Sotamayor was more interested in not issuing a ruling on the case, since the law has changed, than she was siding with the state. Could she possibly just sit out a decision?
Click to expand...
She might, but I bet she writes the dissenting opinion.
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
WVUCOOPER said:
That SCOTUS blog seemed to imply Sotamayor was more interested in not issuing a ruling on the case, since the law has changed, than she was siding with the state. Could she possibly just sit out a decision?
Click to expand...

She took the states side early in the argument but then saw where it seemed to be heading and then switched to the argument that the state revoked the ban and therefore, SCOTUS should not even be hearing the case. I think she either votes with the state or abstains, as you suggest.
 
C

CAJUNEER_rivals

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
WVUCOOPER said:
That SCOTUS blog seemed to imply Sotamayor was more interested in not issuing a ruling on the case, since the law has changed, than she was siding with the state. Could she possibly just sit out a decision?
Click to expand...
I think so rules for the state. But you could be right. She could sit this one out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom