Subject: Re: When Ginsburg and Thomas BOTH Think You're Wrong...
Full headers:
From: Clave <>
Subject: Re: When Ginsburg and Thomas BOTH Think Youre Wrong...
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 14:17:57 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <p2939q$mo2$>
References: <p292ji$ikr$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:17:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="93f7dc46f1b1b651d814a45a2718d106";
logging-data="23298"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lvRPaBioFzFQsJNOYr8SD"
In-Reply-To: <p292ji$ikr$>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ime3w5CglLDboTl2W2ES+NLZwGI=
Print Article
Forward Article
BEG pardon, forgot to mention that this is part of a year-end retrospective.

More fun later.

On 12/30/2017 2:06 PM, Clave wrote:
> About 40 minutes after Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch began his 
> second day of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, all eight 
> of the justices he hopes to join said a major disability decision 
> Gorsuch wrote in 2008 was wrong.
> <...>
> Under Gorsuch’s opinion in Luke P., a school district complies with the 
> law so long as they provide educational benefits that “must merely be 
> ‘more than de minimis.’”
> “De minimis” is a Latin phrase meaning “so minor as to merit disregard.” 
> So Gorsuch essentially concluded that school districts comply with their 
> obligation to disabled students so long as they provide those students 
> with a little more than nothing.
> All eight justices rejected Gorsuch’s approach. IDEA, Chief Justice 
> Roberts wrote, “is markedly more demanding than the ‘merely more than de 
> minimis’ test applied by the Tenth Circuit.” Indeed, Roberts added, 
> Gorsuch’s approach would effectively strip many disabled students of 
> their right to an education.
> <...>
> UPDATE: Shortly after the Supreme Court’s Endrew F. decision came down, 
> Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Gorsuch about his now-discredited 
> decision. Gorsuch defended his approach in Luke P., claiming that he was 
> “bound by circuit precedent.” But Gorsuch is not correct.