June 15, 2020 6:58 AM
Morning Reads for Monday, June 15, 2020
On this last Monday of Spring, the Georgia General Assembly will reconvene to finish the work that was interrupted in March by COVID-19. It will be the oddest end to the oddest session, which is pretty much the only thing that makes sense for the year that just needs to go back to wherever it came from.
- NAACP planning “March on Georgia” to state capitol Monday morning
- Georgia’s confirmed COVID-19 cases rise by 880 since Saturday to reach 57,681 on Sunday
- Georgia GOP reprimands official for ‘home of the slave’ remark about anti-racist protesters
- Georgia’s 7th District Democratic primary too close to call
- Budget, Budget, Budget.
- Stacey Abrams’ push to be Joe Biden’s VP choice has raised her profile – but she is an underdog
- Programs offered to give students construction industry training
- New study: In Georgia, college degree really pays off
- Tift County woman still asking for the return of Georgia Dawg statues
- Georgia Nursing staff back with family after virus lockdown
About Author
Theresa Garcia Robertson
Wife. Mama. Foodie. Political Junkie. Southern Enthusiast. Taco Lover.
5 Comments
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This is the last monday morning reader before the summer solstice.
OK, who had “Gorsuch writes SCOTUS opinion stating Title VII protects LGBT from employment discrimination” on their 2020 bingo card?
Based on arguments, and him being a ‘as the law is written’ type, AKA Textualist, I had a feeling he could be playing the part of Kennedy on this one. Didn’t think he would write the opinion if he did.
Interesting conclusion to Kavanaugh’s dissent, also. He basically says the outcome is correct but should have been accomplished by Congress, not the courts.
I have not read the whole of either documents.
That conclusion is interesting in that federal judges in general are starting to point out in written and oral arguments that congress or local/state governments should either be addressing items, or clarify the laws.
On the clarity front, I’m interested in the law requesting the presidents income tax returns from the IRS for congressional oversite that has not been argued in SCOTUS yet. To simplify, the debate by the president’s team is the implication of the word shall not applying to the president. There is no exception or secondary langue to the law that would state that intent. Either the current legal definition of ‘shall’ is applied, or SCOTUS redefines the term. This effects millions of laws, mandates, codes, and standards. I don’t see Roberts or Gorsuch redefining a legal concept that is over 1000 years old. Gorsuch’s implication in the ruling opinion of the intent of the people who wrote a law vs the text of the law might be a preview of what is said in oral arguments.