Supreme Court opinions are usually pretty easy to read. There’s also a “syllabus” that summarizes the decision, although it’s sometimes harder to understand than the opinions. Here are the syllabus and opinion for this case: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22-200
Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy
51–60 of 128 posts
Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy
#52> "Naturally, Congress remains free to revise the securities laws at any time, whether to address the rise of direct listings or any other development. Our only function lies in discerning and applying the law as we find it." I really don't see how anyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions calls this court illegitimate. They are very consistent about not being a super legislature, no matter how disruptive th…
This court is illegitimate because most of it was appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote. The fact it keeps dropping decisions that are far out of step with the legal community and the public itself is a consequence of this.
If you think the Court is merely "interpreting the constitution" then please explain how to interpret the 14th amendment without giving the Supreme Court wide latitude to protect minorities?
EDIT: Equal protection means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. They are a super legislature whether we like or not, and if they're going to be one, it sure would be nice if they cared at least a little bit about public opinion on matters of great controversy. And popular vote absolutely matters for legitimacy and "will of the people", even if the rules are currently stacked against one person one vote.
Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy
#53> "Naturally, Congress remains free to revise the securities laws at any time, whether to address the rise of direct listings or any other development. Our only function lies in discerning and applying the law as we find it." I really don't see how anyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions calls this court illegitimate. They are very consistent about not being a super legislature, no matter how disruptive th…
As much as I've been deeply unsatisfied with a lot of SCOTUS decisions in the past few years, I have to agree with you completely that it is the legislative branch which "should" have resolved nearly all the high-profile (and possibly even medium-profile) cases that have been brought to the court, by passing actual laws. Should we have (abortion, vote by mail, immigration, etc etc)? Yes the answers are controversial,…
The legislative branch can't heal itself, how do you get Wyoming to give up its power to cancel out California's?
Also, we have the 14th amendment, which basically bars discrimination. The Constitution is the super legislature and it's up to the Supreme Court to keep it that way by making sure states can't turn women or sexual minorities into second or third class citizens. Which they are currently doing.
Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I first came across this in Money Stuff[1], but the gist of it is, the unregistered shares came from employees selling their own shares. The reason it would not have happened with an IPO is because the employees would have been locked up. Everything else you said is correct. Now SCOTUS is saying that Pirrani cannot sue slack because he may not have bought shares directly from Slack. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opin…
Honestly it seems like the best practice is always just "read Money Stuff". I'm not a serious follower of financial news, but various things do come across my radar, and since I've subbed to the email version of Money Stuff (about a year now), I always feel like I'm a week ahead of everyone else (again, at this not-serious-follower level, not a week ahead of the folks who are genuinely in the know). Like all the Twit…
I've always been amazed at how much content he writes every day. Typically 3 topics, often quite different, with hypothetical situations added, laymen explanations of esoteric topics, legal arguments each side is likely to bring along with some of their pitfalls. Footnotes and other articles of interest are also provided.
Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy
#55Is it just me, or are newspaper articles surprisingly difficult to read? From what I understand: 1. Instead of a traditional IPO, Slack went public through an alternative process called a direct listing. 2. As part of its direct listing, Slack sold some million "registered" and some million "unregistered" shares. 3. What are registered and unregistered shares? I could not find an explanation on Wikipedia. 4. Fiyyaz P…
I first came across this in Money Stuff[1], but the gist of it is, the unregistered shares came from employees selling their own shares. The reason it would not have happened with an IPO is because the employees would have been locked up. Everything else you said is correct. Now SCOTUS is saying that Pirrani cannot sue slack because he may not have bought shares directly from Slack. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opin…
that is interesting, may not have, how in the world does the accounting work in this scenario, they just pool everything together similar to that critique of Amazon with mixed inventory or whatever that problem is called? I always thought these sorts of things could be mapped to some kind of FIFO ordering to establish ownership nitty gritty ownership. I pondered this mapping before thinking about taxes where taxes paid queue up into some governmental account, and taxes spent take the head of the queue which maps to some individual tax payer. Why can't we process and form accounting associations like this?
Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do, and do. Not for this ruling, this ruling was just stupid. The odds that not one single share he purchased was registered is 1 / pow(10, 57,287). After that we're just haggling over how many there are. The ruling that I, and most people, find to be damning is overturning Row. I don't give two shits about what you think of the actual issue. It doesn't matter if the previous ruling was wrong, the point of the cour…
> "The ruling that I, and most people, find to be damning is overturning Row. I don't give two shits about what you think of the actual issue. It doesn't matter if the previous ruling was wrong, the point of the courts ironically isn't to actually get it right but make a decision. After that the law has been interpreted and it's up to the legislature to say, "no I actually meant this." There is some room for exceptio…
> RvW was decided based on constitutional grounds, which means that even if a legislature thought it was wrong, there would be no way to 'clarify' the matter.
That's not true at all, at least rules as written. If the supreme court interprets the constitution and the legislature doesn't like it they have the power to amend it. Thats the explicit check the legislature has on the courts. And yeah it's a huge PITA but we've also done it 27 times.
> In addition to those, there have been many times when the judges have (almost) all been from the same party (the 1930s come to mind); should those cases get deference?
Yes, absolutely. I have no idea why you thought I would say no to this.
Split decisions are fine for first rulings, it's how it goes, people disagree. But when it comes to the courts changing their mind down the road the bar needs to be higher. The previous ruling has been standing for however long without the legislature feeling the need to intervene. Unless there is some new information like a hypothetical ruling that was based on phrenology or an exceptional case where it's clear to everyone that it was a mistake and the logic doesn't actually follow you should give deference.
And look, I know this gives a huge amount of bias to the decision in the first ruling but without it the decisions of the court stop having any meaning. So what if they ruled is unconstitutional? I can keep doing it because the next time it might not be.
It is pants-on-head stupid that flagrantly violating the constitution on purpose after the law has been settled so you can go back to the supreme court and rule a different way even has a chance of working.
When you have half the court saying the decision as it was originally made was not only not made in error but that it was correct that really needs to be the legislature's problem.
Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy
#57> "Naturally, Congress remains free to revise the securities laws at any time, whether to address the rise of direct listings or any other development. Our only function lies in discerning and applying the law as we find it." I really don't see how anyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions calls this court illegitimate. They are very consistent about not being a super legislature, no matter how disruptive th…
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Sure, it’s unsurprising, but goes directly against how the GP was implying the court behaves. Adjacent political commentary isn’t wrong but is a different conversation
The point being that the politicalization of the court could have been short circuited if politicians did their jobs legislating abortion access into law. We wouldnt need to have the charade of the past few SCOTUS confirmation hearings about Roe because instead of overturning a prior decision the court would have had to find some construction to claim that an abortion access law was unconstitutional.
Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I always thought this was simply shorthand for something like: "I own shares #1034852, #1092647, and #2986246". Nope, (private) shares are almost always fungible and not numbered/serialized in any way. In fact most shares are just a name followed by a number of shares in an excel spreadsheet or Google sheet at best, if not simply a declaration in founding documents. > People sometimes own 0.25 shares of a company,…
Sure for private shares. But what about public shares, which is what people are usually discussing? Do publicly traded shares not have serial numbers or identification numbers or something to that effect?
> Do publicly traded shares not have serial numbers or identification numbers or something to that effect?
No they’re fungible. The vast majority are held as book entries in the DTCC[1]. Even if you pull them out of that system, they still don’t have an individual identification number like a bond’s serial number.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_...
Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy
#60> "Naturally, Congress remains free to revise the securities laws at any time, whether to address the rise of direct listings or any other development. Our only function lies in discerning and applying the law as we find it." I really don't see how anyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions calls this court illegitimate. They are very consistent about not being a super legislature, no matter how disruptive th…
What I don't understand is how anyone who has read the Dobbs decision sees it as even handed and reasonable.
Ignoring stare decisis with the flimsy "history and tradition" argument is farcical, considering the jurisprudence it was overturning was in place for about 1/5 of the nation's history.
The legitimacy of the court is in question because the court is at this point another political branch .
This is because the legislature is going full scorched earth in their "advise and consent" powers as a weapon.
Reform is needed.