If you’re going to claim that someone has been proven wrong, you really owe it to them and your readers to identify the specific statement you are addressing. I read the Kagan colloquy you refer to (which you ought to link, btw) and I found no specific assertion you can reasonably claim to have proven false. The discussion was largely hypothetical, and not at all confined to the CASA case, though she did make the assertion that the government would have an incentive not to appeal in the circumstances under discussion. This is plainly true. I find your “to the extent that” framing quite lame. If the dissenters made testable claims, name them. If not, don’t claim to have proven them false.
I'd argue the best kind of dissent is one which pushes the court system to make sure it's horrobles don't happen. When the court stopped universal injunctions it was still very unclear about how picky was the court going to be about class status etc. So it seems perfectly reasonable to worry about whether this new procedural posture was going to limit the ability of people to get relief in this case. I think many people -- possibly including justices -- worried that the motivation for this move was to let the court dodge issues that might put them in too open conflict with the executive.
Indeed, perhaps without this concern from the dissent this outcome wouldn't have happened. Exactly by highlighting the worry creates pressure in the majority and in later cases to signal to lower courts not to prove the dissent right.
I still worry that it will happen in other cases .
Falsifiable and falsified as to this particular issue, but I never thought that was the dissenters' only concern. The rule announced could still have the effects that the dissenters warned against in other cases, but that claim is less easily falsifiable.
One thing I always wondered about CASA was the hypo where the administration signed an EO allowing ICE or CPB, at each officer's individual discretion, to summarily execute anyone the officer suspects might be in the country illegally. Under CASA, that policy cannot by universally enjoined. And given SCOTUS' hostility to class actions plus the discretion in the EO, is there a certifiable class here? I'm not lawyer, so maybe there is a simple answer to this hypo.
If you’re going to claim that someone has been proven wrong, you really owe it to them and your readers to identify the specific statement you are addressing. I read the Kagan colloquy you refer to (which you ought to link, btw) and I found no specific assertion you can reasonably claim to have proven false. The discussion was largely hypothetical, and not at all confined to the CASA case, though she did make the assertion that the government would have an incentive not to appeal in the circumstances under discussion. This is plainly true. I find your “to the extent that” framing quite lame. If the dissenters made testable claims, name them. If not, don’t claim to have proven them false.
I'd argue the best kind of dissent is one which pushes the court system to make sure it's horrobles don't happen. When the court stopped universal injunctions it was still very unclear about how picky was the court going to be about class status etc. So it seems perfectly reasonable to worry about whether this new procedural posture was going to limit the ability of people to get relief in this case. I think many people -- possibly including justices -- worried that the motivation for this move was to let the court dodge issues that might put them in too open conflict with the executive.
Indeed, perhaps without this concern from the dissent this outcome wouldn't have happened. Exactly by highlighting the worry creates pressure in the majority and in later cases to signal to lower courts not to prove the dissent right.
I still worry that it will happen in other cases .
Falsifiable and falsified as to this particular issue, but I never thought that was the dissenters' only concern. The rule announced could still have the effects that the dissenters warned against in other cases, but that claim is less easily falsifiable.
One thing I always wondered about CASA was the hypo where the administration signed an EO allowing ICE or CPB, at each officer's individual discretion, to summarily execute anyone the officer suspects might be in the country illegally. Under CASA, that policy cannot by universally enjoined. And given SCOTUS' hostility to class actions plus the discretion in the EO, is there a certifiable class here? I'm not lawyer, so maybe there is a simple answer to this hypo.