Talk:Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt: Difference between revisions

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that U.S. states are immune from private suits against them in courts of other states without their consent per this recent Supreme Court ruling? Source: "The issue in Monday’s 5-to-4 ruling was one of limited impact: whether states have sovereign immunity from private lawsuits in the courts of other states. In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional right to such immunity, although states are free to extend it to one another and often do. But the court’s conservative majority overruled that decision" [1]

Created by MrClog (talk). Self-nominated at 18:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues. No QPQ is needed here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Not "wild speculation"

Hello! I have undone this edit by CharlesShirley. Here are various quotes from the sources mentioned in the Dissent section.

The Washington Post: Justice Stephen G. Breyer had other issues — abortion rights, for instance, or affirmative action — in mind in his dissent.

Forbes: In other words, will Roe v. Wade be next?

NY Times: Justice Breyer did not address the fate of Roe v. Wade directly. But he sounded a general note of caution

SCOTUSblog: The message here is not subtle. ... So perhaps the “next” overruling will involve abortion rights — another longtime target of conservative opposition.

For this reason, it is not "wild speculation", but rather it is verifiable speculation and as such permissible. --MrClog (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I edited your change. You used the word "likely", arguing that the Roe getting overturned is "likely" based upon the result of FTB vs. Hyatt. That use of the word likely is clearly incorrect. In none of the articles that you cited to overturn my edit is the word "likely" used. None of the article made such a bold claim. I don't know where you found that word but it does not apply to this case or situation. All of the reliable sources that you cited were much, much more cautious in their evaluation of the implications of of FTB vs. Hyatt. For example, SCOTUSBlog, which you cited, is not even close to your personal opinion (I say personal opinion since you did not cite a reliable source that backed up your wording). SCOTUSBlog says, "Time will tell whether Hyatt has set the stage for overrulings to come." See: Opinion analysis: Hyatt fulfills expectations in a surprising way. The overturning of Roe is a possibility only. It is not "likely" because none of the cited reliable sources say it is likely. Also, the Forbes article only quoted a law professor who simply asked, "Will Roe be next?" He did not say the overturning of Roe is "likely". He just asked a question. His question is not support for the word likely.--CharlesShirley (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, You used the word "likely", arguing that the Roe getting overturned is "likely" based upon the result of FTB vs. Hyatt is completely incorrect. The article read The liberal bloc of the Court dissented, warning for the willingness of the conservative bloc to overrule precedent, saying that the "decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next", likely referring to the Court's past rulings on abortion (such as Roe v. Wade). As such, the article simply said that what justice Stephen Breyer, supported by the liberal bloc of the Court, said ("decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next") likely referred to past SCOTUS rulings on abortion. The mentioned sources support that he likely referred to past rulings on abortion, and as such the article should say so. --MrClog (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)