|
Rebochan posted:I don't normally grave dance, but I will for that hateful sack of poo poo. I will bring someone else's urine to pour on his grave. That is how immensely I dislike him. I mean I don't wish death on the man—just that he'd retire—but that doesn't mean I don't think the world will be a better place without him. 
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
Apologies for the double post, but fresh off of the TWITTAH MACHINE from TPM's coverage:quote:SCALIA: Wouldn’t Congress act to ease the consequences if we find the subsidies illegal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Apologies for the double post, but fresh off of the TWITTAH MACHINE from TPM's coverage: The court has ruled that its not their job to fix the mistakes of the legislature. If the law is hosed and Congress won't fix it, that's their own fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:The court has ruled that its not their job to fix the mistakes of the legislature. If the law is hosed and Congress won't fix it, that's their own fault. Yeah, but I wouldn't miss the opening for that  either
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So I see Scalia is adopting the George Costanza test for statute interpretation Between this and the "It's not a lie if YOU believe it" standard for factual statements, Seinfeld really has shaped american political discourse
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:The court has ruled that its not their job to fix the mistakes of the legislature. If the law is hosed and Congress won't fix it, that's their own fault. Scalia is trying to say that Congress would, in order to lobby Roberts. Scalia's argument is hilariously obviously untrue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
The threat of causing a massive clusterfuck through what would be seen as a flagrantly partisan decision is a much bigger consideration for Roberts if congress can't bail his rear end out. It'd be absolute poison for the popular legitimacy of American political institutions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Idle thoughts brought about by upthread Scalia chat - what happens if, after these hearings, one of the justices just drops dead before they write their opinion. Do they go ahead and issue a ruling on the remaining 8, or do they slider arguments to be reheard as soon as the next person is appointed? I'd assume it's the former, but in that case what if it is split 4-4?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Idle thoughts brought about by upthread Scalia chat - what happens if, after these hearings, one of the justices just drops dead before they write their opinion. Do they go ahead and issue a ruling on the remaining 8, or do they slider arguments to be reheard as soon as the next person is appointed? I'd assume it's the former, but in that case what if it is split 4-4? Lower court ruling is upheld but without setting precedent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Idle thoughts brought about by upthread Scalia chat - what happens if, after these hearings, one of the justices just drops dead before they write their opinion. Do they go ahead and issue a ruling on the remaining 8, or do they slider arguments to be reheard as soon as the next person is appointed? I'd assume it's the former, but in that case what if it is split 4-4? Typically they would take a vote and if split 4-4 order reargument with the new justice. If they didn't and the case was stuck at 4-4, the lower court decision is affirmed without precedential value - as if they had never taken the case to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:The threat of causing a massive clusterfuck through what would be seen as a flagrantly partisan decision is a much bigger consideration for Roberts if congress can't bail his rear end out. It'd be absolute poison for the popular legitimacy of American political institutions. Roberts apparently didn't talk today which is...unhelpful in knowing how he's leaning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Idle thoughts brought about by upthread Scalia chat - what happens if, after these hearings, one of the justices just drops dead before they write their opinion. Do they go ahead and issue a ruling on the remaining 8, or do they slider arguments to be reheard as soon as the next person is appointed? I'd assume it's the former, but in that case what if it is split 4-4? If Thomas can sleep through proceedings and somehow weigh in on things I'm pretty sure a corpse can pull the same trick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Lower court ruling is upheld but without setting precedent. And when the case when to SCOTUS because of split appellate rulings? I know for King it would mean en banc to rehear the one that sided with the plaintiffs, but what about in general?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:And when the case when to SCOTUS because of split appellate rulings? different rules in different jurisdictions
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
I think the potential, however unlikely, that Congress could fix its own law so that the law does what they desire it to do, rather than the Court interpreting it in a way to make it functional is enough to sway the Court's decision to leave it to the Congress to either repair or repeal the act. I guess we will see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/first-mid-argument-update-king-v-burwell/ WhiskeyJuvenile posted:That's literally the most infuriating thing about this: even under the bullshit neo-confederate theory that invalidated the Medicare expansion in the first place, this lawsuit has no loving legs The ACA expanded Medicaid, not Medicare; if this is gonna be brought up, it should be in the correct context.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:I think the potential, however unlikely, that Congress could fix its own law so that the law does what they desire it to do, rather than the Court interpreting it in a way to make it functional is enough to sway the Court's decision to leave it to the Congress to either repair or repeal the act. I guess we will see. If Roberts does that, he'll probably be one of the worst Chief Justices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The ACA expanded Medicaid, not Medicare; if this is gonna be brought up, it should be in the correct context. The ACA expanded both, but the ruling was about Medicaid. If we're going to be correcting people, might as well be correct: http://www.medicare.gov/about-us/affordable-care-act/affordable-care-act.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The ACA expanded both, but the ruling was about Medicaid. If we're going to be correcting people, might as well be correct: http://www.medicare.gov/about-us/affordable-care-act/affordable-care-act.html The distinction, in this instance, is crucial: EW & WJ were specifically referring to the Court's ruling on Medicaid, not Medicare; the prior ruling had nothing to do with Medicare, so your point doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The distinction, in this instance, is crucial: EW & WJ were specifically referring to the Court's ruling on Medicaid, not Medicare; the prior ruling had nothing to do with Medicare, so your point doesn't make sense. My point makes sense in that what you were saying was technically incorrect and I was helpfully correcting you. Medicaid and Medicare were both expanded by ACA and you stated otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:I think the potential, however unlikely, that Congress could fix its own law so that the law does what they desire it to do, rather than the Court interpreting it in a way to make it functional is enough to sway the Court's decision to leave it to the Congress to either repair or repeal the act. I guess we will see. I don't see how this justifies deliberately misreading the law, then throwing up your hands and going "well it's congress' job to fix it and make it so there's no way we can possibly misinterpret it again the next time someone asks us to"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:My point makes sense in that what you were saying was technically incorrect and I was helpfully correcting you. Medicaid and Medicare were both expanded by ACA and you stated otherwise. No, it doesn't. EW & WJ clearly stated that the ruling was about Medicare; I was pointing out that it was expanded Medicaid, not Medicare, that the Court had decided.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't see how this justifies deliberately misreading the law, then throwing up your hands and going "well it's congress' job to fix it so there's no way we can possibly misinterpret it next time someone asks us to" It doesn't justify misreading the law by itself, but it rebuts the important argument "the results would be bad otherwise, so you have to interpret this way"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
esquilax posted:It doesn't justify misreading the law by itself, but it rebuts the important argument "the results would be bad otherwise, so you have to interpret this way" Even if there's two ways to read the law, it doesn't seem like it makes sense to deliberately choose the way that makes it not work. It doesn't seem very plausible to assume congress intended to pass a law that doesn't work and then knowingly did so. And then they all decided to lie about it afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:No, it doesn't. EW & WJ clearly stated that the ruling was about Medicare; I was pointing out that it was expanded Medicaid, not Medicare, that the Court had decided. Since we just have to do this poo poo, apparently: Willa Rogers posted:The ACA expanded Medicaid, not Medicare He was responding to your pedantry, which was misspoken, with his own pedantry. Christ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:The threat of causing a massive clusterfuck through what would be seen as a flagrantly partisan decision is a much bigger consideration for Roberts if congress can't bail his rear end out. It'd be absolute poison for the popular legitimacy of American political institutions. http://www.people-press.org/2014/05/06/supreme-court-favorability-rebounds/ Any partisan decision will gain as much favorability as it loses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Willa's right, I misspoke (she's still wrong about everything else ACA related)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:No, it doesn't. EW & WJ clearly stated that the ruling was about Medicare; I was pointing out that it was expanded Medicaid, not Medicare, that the Court had decided. he was pointing out that when you make a technical correction when everyone knows what was intended it is embarrassing to need a technical correction of your own 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Maybe I'm overly cynical but at this point I don't think the law or precedent matters as any thing other than a fig leaf over a partisan decision. Politics will determine the outcome, not the facts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:he was pointing out that when you make a technical correction when everyone knows what was intended it is embarrassing to need a technical correction of your own It's not embarrassing since the link that Trabisnikof provided to contend that Medicare was "expanded" was pretty weaksauce. Medicare "expansion" would have been lowering the eligibility age to 55 (just as expanded Medicaid meant widening its pool of recipients), not throwing in a couple preventive exams that CMS could have instituted anyway, outside of legislation. The one way in which Medicare was arguably "expanded" was in regard to Part D, No one considers Medicare to have been expanded, as a program, under the ACA, and it's bizarre to contend otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Maybe I'm overly cynical but at this point I don't think the law or precedent matters as any thing other than a fig leaf over a partisan decision. Politics will determine the outcome, not the facts. Why did Roberts switch his vote at the last moment in the 2012 Obamacare case?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Maybe I'm overly cynical but at this point I don't think the law or precedent matters as any thing other than a fig leaf over a partisan decision. Politics will determine the outcome, not the facts. After the Hobby Lobby decision I'm forced to take the same view.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
I expect nothing less than a 5-4 champagne blowjob for the hard right. But then again I expected that from the last ACA case, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I expect nothing less than a 5-4 champagne blowjob for the hard right. But then again I expected that from the last ACA case, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised again. Looking at this, I could see Roberts being unwilling to go for gutting Obamacare instead he and Kennedy use this to reinforce their new "coercion" doctrine. It's a very Roberts thing to do, punting on a specific case to sneak in a doctrine he wants for later use.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Why did Roberts switch his vote at the last moment in the 2012 Obamacare case? He made his decision out of concern for politics, not an accurate reading of the law. That's one of the big reasons I think it's politics, not precedents or what the law says that matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Looking at this, I could see Roberts being unwilling to go for gutting Obamacare instead he and Kennedy use this to reinforce their new "coercion" doctrine. It's a very Roberts thing to do, punting on a specific case to sneak in a doctrine he wants for later use. I expect this as well. The politics of a post-King decision against the government seem like they are firmly in the Democrats' favor, handing a campaign issue to Democrats in states with rescinded subsidies as well as a national issue for 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Looking at this, I could see Roberts being unwilling to go for gutting Obamacare instead he and Kennedy use this to reinforce their new "coercion" doctrine. It's a very Roberts thing to do, punting on a specific case to sneak in a doctrine he wants for later use. I agree. This long view of legal theory and understanding of his position is what makes Robert so effective and influential as a member of the Court- unlike Scalia, his influence will likely outlast him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think there's good evidence that the popular perception of legitimacy of the Supreme Court is directly partisan: There's still a bit of a slide over the period shown. Gallup also shows a trend in that direction and it's possible the partisan gains aren't enough to offset the partisan losses. If the Court is seen as partisan in general, then it's harder for them to pass off decisions which produce unpopular results as simply deciding the law impartially rather than aiming for a particular result. Eight million people potentially losing health insurance would be huge and the reading to get there is tortuous enough that it took years for someone to even come up with that interpretation. Even then laypeople can intuitively get the idea that if there's two ways that some part of a law could work, don't pick the one that makes the rest of the law nonsensical so it raises the question why they picked it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:I expect this as well. There's effectively zero chance there's enough of a change in the legislature (state or federal level) to make that kind of outcome after 2016, and the political memory of the country doesn't inspire confidence in it remaining an issue in 2020 or 2022.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
It would be kind of retarded for them to strike down a law and gently caress over millions of Americans over a typo. What are history books going to say about that? The justices have to know this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:42
|
|