|
Josh Lyman posted:Friday isn't a decision day though... They added Thursday and Friday this week as decision days
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Friday isn't a decision day though... they already announced it
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Friday is 26/6 the same date as Windsor and Lawrence. A big gay anniversary indeed. E: Roberts is probably going to counterweight the social issue with a horrific corporatist decision like he always has. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:A big gay anniversary indeed. Wouldn't the corporatist decision here be to maintain the subsidies? I am sure the insurance companies don't want to give up billions in government money while still being subject to guaranteed issue and seeing their risk pools collapse in almost half the states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wouldn't the corporatist decision here be to maintain the subsidies? But taxes 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
Why do scotusblog think that order?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:Why do scotusblog think that order? Gay marriage was argued later in the term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:Why do scotusblog think that order? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Guessing court will go pro gay marriage, con obamacare both released same day. If for no other reason than trolling the media.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
I thought they were lawyers, not economists?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Guessing court will go pro gay marriage, con obamacare both released same day. If for no other reason than trolling the media. pro gay marriage, Kennedy writing about equal protection pro obamacare, Kennedy (or Roberts) writing about coercion of our state sovereigns
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand the outcome where we get a pro-Obamacare ruling. The Conservative wing of the court thought they had the votes to strike it down (i.e. Roberts changed his mind again), but it turns out they didn't (Kennedy changed his mind / Roberts changed his mind AGAIN)? If they didn't have five anti votes at some point, they probably wouldn't have taken the case, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
If they rule in favor of King, not only will that cause the destruction of the insurance market, but it could open up many new suits potentially since they would have to agree that those four words outweigh everything else that contradicts them in the entire text of the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:pro obamacare, Kennedy (or Roberts) writing about coercion of our state sovereigns Slate Action posted:If they didn't have five anti votes at some point, they probably wouldn't have taken the case, right?  . If it had to be dragged kicking and screaming to SCOTUS on the back of diverging circuit decisions then I'd be less concerned with Roberts' mood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:I'm not sure I understand the outcome where we get a pro-Obamacare ruling. The Conservative wing of the court thought they had the votes to strike it down (i.e. Roberts changed his mind again), but it turns out they didn't (Kennedy changed his mind / Roberts changed his mind AGAIN)? If they didn't have five anti votes at some point, they probably wouldn't have taken the case, right? They probably just decided that it was their last, best chance to swat at Obamacare and took the chance that they could pull a majority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Them having taken the case in the first place just give me such a strong vibe that Roberts changed his mind again. I think it's all up to Kennedy. Any chance we might get a coercion argument from Thomas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If they rule in favor of King, not only will that cause the destruction of the insurance market, but it could open up many new suits potentially since they would have to agree that those four words outweigh everything else that contradicts them in the entire text of the law.  What would the effects on the insurance market be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:I'm not sure I understand the outcome where we get a pro-Obamacare ruling. The Conservative wing of the court thought they had the votes to strike it down (i.e. Roberts changed his mind again), but it turns out they didn't (Kennedy changed his mind / Roberts changed his mind AGAIN)? If they didn't have five anti votes at some point, they probably wouldn't have taken the case, right? Alito, Scalia, Thomas voted to grant cert to strike it down. Could easily see Kennedy and/or Roberts joining in because it's a very important issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Vox apparently seems convinced that everything will be fine in states with exchanges and that it will get so bad in the short term in the ones without that they'll have to fast track their own to catch up. There would be some holdouts but ultimately it would not "kill" the ACA, just make life miserable for a lot of people for a long while.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Maybe it'll ruin healthcare beyond repair, giving the government the chance it's wanted all along to step in and totally take over are healthcare just as planned  (i know conservatives who believe this and say so like it's assumed that single payer would be the worst thing in the world)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Maybe it'll ruin healthcare beyond repair, giving the government the chance it's wanted all along to step in and totally take over are healthcare just as planned That'd be some great cosmic irony if the King suit ends up causing what the conservatives most fear because it makes the insurance market collapse with insurers failing all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
axeil posted:That'd be some great cosmic irony if the King suit ends up causing what the conservatives most fear because it makes the insurance market collapse with insurers failing all over the place. It would likely only end up killing the individual market, and only in those states. The vast majority of non-government health insurance in this country is issued through employers, and that market would not be directly affected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
What about payments received in those states? Since Congress is unlikely to pass a veto-proof solution to that, seems like the Supreme Court might say those need to be paid back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
It would kill the market in some states, giving the GOP the cover they need to pass an emergency bill allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines. Shortly thereafter, Texas ramrods a bill through their legislature stripping all power from state insurance regulators. Seeing the writing on the wall, several other states follow suit with more and more radical measures until Kansas is granting state lands and debt-financed incentive packages to insurance companies who flee to Kansas in order to take advantage of laws allowing them to treat all employees as independent contractors and operate out of rusting trailers with no air conditioning or door knobs inside.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
sullat posted:What about payments received in those states? Since Congress is unlikely to pass a veto-proof solution to that, seems like the Supreme Court might say those need to be paid back. It's extremely unlikely, even if they do rule for King, that the SCOTUS will give any directive about the rescinding the subsidies already paid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
esquilax posted:It would likely only end up killing the individual market, and only in those states. The vast majority of non-government health insurance in this country is issued through employers, and that market would not be directly affected. It would still create political chaos because its still a huge chunk of people without insurance and people are stupid and will flip their poo poo even if it doesn't directly effect them. Governors will be under a lot of pressure to fix it, which they won't want to do -- particularly if they're Republicans. They'll toss it back to Congress who is literally incapable of tying its shoes, let alone fixing this in a way that won't blow up in their faces in time to make it a campaign issue for 2016 -- and the only thing the Republicans don't want to talk about more than fixing healthcare is the Bush Presidency. I think Roberts knows that. I think he also knows that the majority of people view King was a wantonly partisan attempt to do what Republicans couldn't do via regular process and he's exceptionally cognizant of that. He likely went along with letting it through to appease the right wing of the court, but that doesn't mean he's willing to vote for it at the risk of the Court's standing. Kennedy also seems determined to score some points on his coercion doctrine, which he can do with an uphold. Most Republicans seem to be privately cheering for an uphold in King because getting rid of ACA posses more political risk than being able to continue running against it. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:They added Thursday and Friday this week as decision days I'm betting on the Obamacare decision Thursday and Gay marriage on Friday, just in time to make it the best (or worst) Pride weekend in history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
e_angst posted:I'm betting on the Obamacare decision Thursday and Gay marriage on Friday, just in time to make it the best (or worst) Pride weekend in history. My guess is ACA will be last. Gay marriage, now less controversial than healthcare. THANKS OBAMA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Alito, Scalia, Thomas voted to grant cert to strike it down. Why do you see Kennedy or Roberts joining in to say that 4 words outweigh both the rest of the bill and also the intention of the people that wrote it? I know the court is politicized, but it's not congress. They're still lawyers who ostensibly are attempting to do what they perceive as a good job. Departing from the way the supreme court usually handles the interpretation of laws written by Congress would require some kind of good justification on the part of the justices doing so, and in this case they know the end result would be killing the insurance market in states with federal exchanges. That kind of ruling would damage perceptions of SCOTUS even without taking into account the consequences. If the court is indeed too politicized and overly-concerned with its own legacy then isn't that more support for the view that they probably won't strike it down? Striking it down would be bad both from a jurisprudence and a political standpoint. I think we see 6-3 or 7-2(minus Alito) in favor of the law. In terms of the timing of cases I think we'll get the ACA decision later this week, but the gay marriage case is going to be last. The ACA decision, if they uphold it, probably isn't going to be so historic in the long term. It's gonna make the news, but not to the same extent as legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states. They're going to want to take their time writing that gay marriage decision since they know it's going to be widely read/circulated/quoted. That's something that makes into eulogies. They're not going to release it before it's perfect. ErIog fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Is there a plausible argument to be made in favour of kings interpretation of the ACA? Outside of the political motivations to strike down the subsidies, is there anyone out there saying this interpretation actually falls in line with a Canon of statutory construction? I'm sure Scalia's opinion will say that judges only interpret a statute when it's ambiguous, and the words here are clear! But assuming there's an ambiguity, how does king respond that his interpretation does not match the intent of the bill or the legislative history?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Is there a plausible argument to be made in favour of kings interpretation of the ACA? Outside of the political motivations to strike down the subsidies, is there anyone out there saying this interpretation actually falls in line with a Canon of statutory construction? They present a plausible argument in their brief that their interpretation is consistent with the intent and legislative history of the bill. The fact that their interpretation is literally wrong didn't actually stop them from making a good argument about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
The problem with taking their argument at face value though, is it represents a sharp departure from precedent concerning how SCOTUS has treated issues in the past and could cause all sorts of headaches for the court down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
ErIog posted:
Unlike most people it seems, I'm thinking they'll go for the softer version of saying states have to recognize any marriage performed in another state, but not saying that there's a constitutional right to gay marriage. It ultimately amounts to almost as much of a victory, but seems more in line with Kennedy's views - I think he'd be uncomfortable with forcing states to grant their approval to gay marriages, but forcing recognition is something he would view as less intrusive while still protecting the rights of couples married in states that approve it. He also tends to dislike bright lines, which is another reason I think he'll shy away from stating the constitution mandates gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Unlike most people it seems, I'm thinking they'll go for the softer version of saying states have to recognize any marriage performed in another state, but not saying that there's a constitutional right to gay marriage. It ultimately amounts to almost as much of a victory, but seems more in line with Kennedy's views - I think he'd be uncomfortable with forcing states to grant their approval to gay marriages, but forcing recognition is something he would view as less intrusive while still protecting the rights of couples married in states that approve it. He also tends to dislike bright lines, which is another reason I think he'll shy away from stating the constitution mandates gay marriage. I don't think that they'll go that route because SCOTUS knows that we'd just be back here in a year or two as more and more federal judges strike down state bans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:Unlike most people it seems, I'm thinking they'll go for the softer version of saying states have to recognize any marriage performed in another state, but not saying that there's a constitutional right to gay marriage. It ultimately amounts to almost as much of a victory, but seems more in line with Kennedy's views - I think he'd be uncomfortable with forcing states to grant their approval to gay marriages, but forcing recognition is something he would view as less intrusive while still protecting the rights of couples married in states that approve it. He also tends to dislike bright lines, which is another reason I think he'll shy away from stating the constitution mandates gay marriage. Yeah, I agree with Zeroisanumber on this one. You make it sound like they're going to make a ruling based on full faith and credit, but that's not really something the court really seemed interested in during oral arguments. edit: I made a dumb argument that I removed because it was dumb. ErIog fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I don't think that they'll go that route because SCOTUS knows that we'd just be back here in a year or two as more and more federal judges strike down state bans. Yeah, they made it clear on the Prop 8 ruling they didn't want to deal with this particular issue more than one more time. This upcoming ruling has been seen as the definitive gay marriage ruling since the court announced they were taking it up, and they aren't taking it up again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The problem with taking their argument at face value though, is it represents a sharp departure from precedent concerning how SCOTUS has treated issues in the past and could cause all sorts of headaches for the court down the road. Would it really? This is an honest question since I really don't know. What's stopping 5 justices from just going "Here's a TOTALLY legit reason why we are siding with King  but this is a special case and shouldn't influence future rulings." That seems kinda what they did in Hobby Lobby.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:Would it really? This is an honest question since I really don't know. What's stopping 5 justices from just going "Here's a TOTALLY legit reason why we are siding with King Caring about the long-term legitimacy of the Court, for one. It looks awfully suspicious if you release more than one ruling, widely seen as motivated by political and not legal philosophy, with a note that says "We know it's poo poo, but it's better to win than to be right".
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Remaining decisions (7): List of all cases from this term with transcripts/audio where available Issue(s): Whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. HELD: disparate impact claims are recognized under the FHA Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 13-1314 [Arg: 3.2.2015] Issue(s): (1) Whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. § 2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts; and (2) whether the Arizona Legislature has standing to bring this suit. Issue(s): Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. HELD: SUCK IT REPUBLICANS Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-47 [Arg: 3.25.2015] Issue(s): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities. & Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46 [Arg: 3.25.2015] Issue(s): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities. & National Mining Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-49 [Arg: 3.25.2015] Issue(s): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities. Johnson v. U.S., No. 13-7120 [Arg: 4.20.2015] Issue(s): (1) Whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. (2) Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague. (*SSM) Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556 [Arg: 4.28.2015] Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state & DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-571 [Arg: 4.28.2015] Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state? & Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-562 [Arg: 4.28.2015] Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state? (*Lethal Injection) Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955 [Arg: 4.29.2015] Issue(s): (1) Whether it is constitutionally permissible for a state to carry out an execution using a three-drug protocol where (a) there is a well-established scientific consensus that the first drug has no pain relieving properties and cannot reliably produce deep, coma-like unconsciousness, and (b) it is undisputed that there is a substantial, constitutionally unacceptable risk of pain and suffering from the administration of the second and third drugs when a prisoner is conscious; (2) whether the plurality stay standard of Baze v. Rees applies when states are not using a protocol substantially similar to the one that this Court considered in Baze; and (3) whether a prisoner must establish the availability of an alternative drug formula even if the state’s lethal-injection protocol, as properly administered, will violate the Eighth Amendment SLOSifl fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 13:06
|
|
