|
MC Nietzche posted:So much delicious butthurt. gently caress your textualism Scalia! quote:After acknowledging the strength of the plain language arguments from the challengers, the majority says "In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase." From my layperson perspective at least.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
emfive posted:just saw a tweet in which somebody lamented that King didn't win and result in massive negative fallout for the GOP. I don't know if that's accelerationist or just dumb. Both, it's fair to think that mainstream Republicans didn't want to deal with the fallout of a ruling against the ACA but there were probably enough insane conservatives to make fixing it completely impractical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
I was tickled by the first line in the Texas dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I wonder what it is like in the oval office right now 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
How do lawyers read these things so fast?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
From the intro to Scalia's dissent: the majority's reading of the text "is of course quite absurd, and the Court's 21 pages of explanation make it no less so." Fuuuck, this bottle of 2015 Chateau de Scalia is really quite wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:How do lawyers read these things so fast? I'm literally a lawyer because I read really loving fast Holy poo poo I assumed the fair housing act was dead and didn't expect the aca opinion, let alone with a Scalia hissy fit
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Scalia has so much fun in his dissents. It's great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:How do lawyers read these things so fast? They are quite easy to read. If you already have a handle on the case you can skip the introduction and go straight to the meat of the decision. If you are in areal hurry you can skim along and you can pick out citations you know to quickly figure out the logic applied and read more to see exactly how it is applied.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:How do lawyers read these things so fast? You read enough of them and you learn to filter out the fluff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Modus ponens? More like SCOTUS moanin
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Drone posted:From the intro to Scalia's dissent: the majority's reading of the text "is of course quite absurd, and the Court's 21 pages of explanation make it no less so." THE ACA MUST BE SAVED
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limi - tation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare. Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Scalia's rage is in top form. He's literally arguing that the court just ruled that up is down for political reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
What a lovely day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
quote:The Court lol Scalia. Sure, those states will gladly side with Obama for the good of their people. Just like they expanded Medicaid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Phew, just heard. Bullet dodged, I gotta wait till I get home tonight to drink in the tears.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:They are quite easy to read. If you already have a handle on the case you can skip the introduction and go straight to the meat of the decision. If you are in areal hurry you can skim along and you can pick out citations you know to quickly figure out the logic applied and read more to see exactly how it is applied. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:You read enough of them and you learn to filter out the fluff.  .Drone posted:From the intro to Scalia's dissent: the majority's reading of the text "is of course quite absurd, and the Court's 21 pages of explanation make it no less so."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Hey Nino, it is the opinion of this Court that you can go gently caress yourself. It is so ordered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Republicans are really hating Bush right now
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:The Obergefell release will be infinitely sweeter. If the majority doesn't cite Scalia I will be extremely disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Scalia's rage is in top form. He's literally arguing that the court just ruled that up is down for political reasons. Meanwhile the majority of the court, having stumbled on a sign with a crudely drawn arrow which has a stray line that looks like it points down but is labeled "up" in a forest of other signs with arrows pointing up and labeled "up" rightfully concludes that the arrow painter is a twit but we know what he meant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Okay, now we need Obergefell v. Hodges to be written by Ginsburg. Maximum victory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Axel Serenity posted:lol Scalia. Sure, those states will gladly side with Obama for the good of their people. Just like they expanded Medicaid.  ?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Quick rundown of what's left: Obergefell v. Hodges Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Michigan v. EPA Johnson v. U.S. Glossip v. Gross
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
The Larch posted:If the majority doesn't cite Scalia I will be extremely disappointed. Please please pleeeeeeeease. I've been loving how every state overturn are basically like "Scalia says the majority ruling means gay marriage for everybody, so here you go"..
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Drone posted:From Scalia's dissent: "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare." Let the butthurt flow like sweet wine, you bitter country club bigot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
If Scalia is this upset about King, I can't even imagine what we're getting Monday. It may just be Scalia taking a steaming crap live on the bench. He's got to top himself somehow, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Okay, now we need Obergefell v. Hodges to be written by Ginsburg. Maximum victory. Nah Kennedy should get that, leaving the lethal injection case for Ginsburg.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:Okay, now we need Obergefell v. Hodges to be written by Ginsburg. Maximum victory. There's no way a full-RBG opinion nets Kennedy. Let Kennedy draft the mealy-mouthed poo poo, I want an RBG concurrence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
The Larch posted:If the majority doesn't cite Scalia I will be extremely disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If Scalia is this upset about King, I can't even imagine what we're getting Monday. It may just be Scalia taking a steaming crap live on the bench. He's got to top himself somehow, right? He's written "I dissent" instead of "I respectfully dissent" in the past, maybe we're going to see him write "I angrily dissent, you motherfuckers" on Obergefell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Wasn't this basically part of Shelby v. Holder? As in, the Supreme Court just said "look, Congress, you can just update the preclearance formula, is that so hard Pretty much, I think. I was worried SCOTUS would do that with the ACA going "Look, we can only interpret what was written. If you want this fixed, just have Congress fix the typo real quick!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
hahaha Roberts cited the first aca dissent to show everyone knew about the subsidies
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
OK Scalia is right about one thing, though:quote:It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and "gently caress Congress"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Wasn't this basically part of Shelby v. Holder? As in, the Supreme Court just said "look, Congress, you can just update the preclearance formula, is that so hard It was also part of what Roberts and Kennedy expected to happen post Citizens United: Surely congress would pass laws mandating disclosure so that everything is above the table, right? I saw an article speculating that the clusterfuck of that and the VRA has made Roberts and Kennedy less likely to count on Congress to fix poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Quick rundown of what's left: I am not holding my breath on Arizona. I'm not sure how impactful it will be around the country (AIRC was established with a ballot initiative, and the legislature is suing because they are petulant children, so I'm not sure that it's really a blow against legislatively-established redistricting commissions), but it'll probably be a huge blow to Arizona's actually quite reasonable districts if they rule in favor of the legislature, and also remove a powerful tool for fighting gerrymandering. I mean, what legislature wants to establish a redistricting commission when it'll probably just their efforts to gerrymander everything to hell. Glossip is obviously a huge deal and I hope this signals the end of the death penalty. I know nothing about the other two. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:OK Scalia is right about one thing, though: Yeah. He's still an ornery rear end in a top hat who wants to watch the world burn, but there's a certain satisfaction in watching the whole court being united in telling Congress to go gently caress itself and get its house in order.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
People are chanting but I can't figure out what they are chanting
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
Scalia's dissent is just plain salty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 15:40
|
|
