The US Supreme Court and its decisions

[G.B.Blackrock]

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-supreme-court-allows-order-forcing-google-make-app-store-reforms-2025-10-06/

My only issue with the ruling is it should affect Apple as well. Not really fair to say Google has to allow third party app stores, but not Apple. Granted, the precedent has been set, so all someone, in theory, would have to do is sue Apple to force them to open up as well. The EU has already forced them to do that in the EU market.

Especially since Epic already took Apple to court over the exact same issues and Apple won. That speaks to a systemic bias against Google, and a bias from the Supreme Court in particular who refused to hear their appeal.

It seems important to point out here that this latest news isn't really a "ruling," at least not in the sense we normally use that term. The Supreme Court is actually saying that they're not granting a request to freeze an earlier order. They've not actually taken up the case fully. If and when the case actually makes to the SCOTUS when they're properly in session, the Apple precedent will almost certainly be considered, and whatever ruling then takes place would presumably have to make the situations consistent.

 

[wonko the sane?]

OH yay, yet another shadow docket ruling. Cause the highest court in the land is ******* terrified to actually RULE on the cases before them.

 

[G.B.Blackrock]

OH yay, yet another shadow docket ruling. Cause the highest court in the land is ******* terrified to actually RULE on the cases before them.

It does seem so quite often, but there's also the issue of scheduling. Shadow Docket allows a lot things to happen much more quickly than waiting for the actual hearings and deliberations and so on....

 

[wonko the sane?]

I mean, I understand the practical limitations: but it's in fact only an argument for a significantly expanded court with a 3 shift work schedule. If there aren't enough man-hours for the work to be done, they need to add those man hours.

 

[Pocket]

I thought the point of expanding the court was to stack it with more people who would vote in our favor, not to split the workload up. Being able to pick and choose which justices hear which cases would introduce a whole new set of problems.

 

[wonko the sane?]

They already pick the cases anyway: might as well split that workload amongst a bunch of groups of supreme court justices as opposed to waiting for them to get off their collective asses.

One supreme court: multiple working groups. To increase the rate at which they pick up and address cases, as well as acting as checks against the other groups.

 

[Dekafox]

Supreme Court To Weigh How Intellectual Disability Is Defined

Disability advocates are speaking out as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to take on a case that hinges on whether a diagnosis of intellectual disability should be based on more than an IQ score.

www.disabilityscoop.com

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

Is this for putting down disabled people, or pandering to the melon felon's brain rot?

 

[wonko the sane?]

Why can't it be both?

 

[KidTDragon]

Supreme Court seems likely to limit race-based electoral districts under Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court seemed likely to limit race-based electoral districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act after hearing arguments by lawyers for Louisiana and the Trump administration.

apnews.com

 

[wonko the sane?]

Cool: but it absolutely cuts both ways, and blue states can redistrict to remove republicans districts. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Dekafox]

Weirdly, the Trump admin actually is coming in on the side of the ISPs and sailors of the seven seas:

Sony tells SCOTUS that people accused of piracy aren’t “innocent grandmothers”

Music companies want ISPs to terminate repeat infringers or pay big damages.

arstechnica.com