|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:People are chanting but I can't figure out what they are chanting I was down at the Court earlier today. They were chanting, "ACA is here to stay."
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
The FHA case is key for housing discrimination Will make my work with banks more difficult but eh
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Thought you might all enjoy this round-up of cases with nice graphics depicting who ruled which way I know it's been said before, but Scalia looks so much like he should.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
alnilam posted:I'm curious how they arranged the justices. It definitely seems like the more left-leaning justices are on the left, etc, but "rank these 9 justices in order of liberalness" seems pretty subjective to me I'd guess they tried to order them by who votes with whom most often so their infographics wouldn't be all staccato looking with random blocks of yellow but more like a yellow continuum, for design purposes rather than any other purpose. Edit: citing Scalia's other Obamacare dissent in this opinion was gold. I know Roberts is a corporate fetishist but he's a pretty smart guy, this opinion is well-written, and I think it's really damning of the dissent that follows. The contrast in quality is just mind-blowing. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
I think my scotus fantasy is that Obama somehow serves on the same court as Scalia and Scalia spends every case thereafter bitching in the dissents that he strongly dissents that Obama has not recused himself from the court for having been the cause of all his widely sited dissents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I am not really concerned about Obergefell, it should be what everyone expects: mandatory gay marriage for all. Shifty Pony posted: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 think you can read the same thing into both decisions, the court is not going to play ignorant of the repercussions of their actions. With the ACA why let a relatively small drafting error when there was clear intent throw the entire insurance marketplace into mayhem when there really isn't a major substantive issue like there was with the first ruling? There was no constitutional crisis at stake and if the court really wanted to stop the ACA they already had a chance to cleanly do it without causing a crisis in the healthcare industry over a minor issue. It's the same with gay marriage, the court had full knowledge of what they were doing when they refused to hear cases that were pushing gay marriages into several districts with lower court rulings before the circuit split. They know full well that they would have contributed for no good reason into making marriage a loving nightmare by reversing course this late in the game, if they were concerned about how they were going to rule they never, ever would have allowed the lower court rulings to go into effect, there is nothing gained by creating such a disaster. Obergefell is 6-3, if Roberts doesn't write the ruling he puts in a concurring opinion saying he wanted a more limited scope on scrutiny or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Taft was the last and only pres -> SCOTUS appointee for a reason* *and that reason is the hundred million dollars a year a non-GWB president earns these days
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:I'd guess they tried to order them by who votes with whom most often so their infographics wouldn't be all staccato looking with random blocks of yellow but more like a yellow continuum, for design purposes rather than any other purpose. Hell, big corporations don't want to have to deal with the uncertainty caused by Obamacare being struck down by SCOTUS. Granted, they don't like it, but they want a managed repeal with a transition period, not a clusterfuck where nobody knows what will happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
John Roberts will have saved Obamacare (twice) and legalized gay marriage nationwide. He's the best inside job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
The Scalia dissent is filled with some truly fantastic butthurt phraseology. My favorites: "Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.”" "Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved." "Faced with overwhelming confirmation that “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means, the Court comes up with argument after feeble argument to support its contrary interpretation." "The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges." (I'm guessing a first time use for the U.S. Reports?) "Pure applesauce." "The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation." "For its next defense of the indefensible, the Court turns to the Affordable Care Act’s design and purposes." "Could anyone maintain with a straight face that §36B is unclear?" "Worst of all for the repute of today’s decision, the Court’s reasoning is largely self-defeating." "Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that “established by the State” means “established by the State or the Federal Government,” the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.”" "Even less defensible, if possible, is the Court’s claim that its interpretive approach is justified because this Act “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.”" "Just ponder the significance of the Court’s decision to take matters into its own hands." "Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty." "And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites." "Pure applesauce." is the winner, though, hands down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:John Roberts will have saved Obamacare (twice) and legalized gay marriage nationwide. He's the best inside job. Sorry bout the VRA tho
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:The Scalia dissent is filled with some truly fantastic butthurt phraseology. My favorites: This one was pretty dumb because basically all high profile cases could be stated as such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
I would like Scalia to be kept around as a tenth man on the court even after he retires, solely so that he can be called in like a designated hitter to write hilariously childish dissents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
If I wanted to be pedantic, could I claim that "established by the state" could just as well mean the state as in the government, rather than the state as in one of the 50 states? Or is there a particular legal definition in play here? I know it doesn't matter as they found other reasons, I'm just curious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Roberts is what happens when a very smart lawyer has some very far right political opinions. Alito is what happens when an ideologue happens to be a lawyer. Scalia is what happens when an ideologue who happens to be a lawyer gets old and yells at clouds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
alnilam posted:If I wanted to be pedantic, could I claim that "established by the state" could just as well mean the state as in the government, rather than the state as in one of the 50 states? Or is there a particular legal definition in play here? I know it doesn't matter as they found other reasons, I'm just curious. "State" was defined in the legislation as the 50 states and DC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
alnilam posted:If I wanted to be pedantic, could I claim that "established by the state" could just as well mean the state as in the government, rather than the state as in one of the 50 states? Or is there a particular legal definition in play here? I know it doesn't matter as they found other reasons, I'm just curious. No, you're absolutely correct. That's part of why this faux-issue wasn't raised earlier. Edit: oh, it was defined? Still seems like a drafting error then. Someone forgot they were using a defined term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Somebody was taking video of Obama and Biden when they heard the ACA ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:John Roberts will have saved Obamacare (twice) and legalized gay marriage nationwide. He's the best inside job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:I would like Scalia to be kept around as a tenth man on the court even after he retires, solely so that he can be called in like a designated hitter to write hilariously childish dissents. This actually has precedent in the Supreme Court, believe it or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:I would like Scalia to be kept around as a tenth man on the court even after he retires, solely so that he can be called in like a designated hitter to write hilariously childish dissents. Scalia, eternal dissenter, and Joe Biden, eternal VP. Sounds good to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Adar posted:Roberts is what happens when a very smart lawyer has some very far right political opinions. Alito is what happens when an ideologue happens to be a lawyer. Scalia is what happens when an ideologue who happens to be a lawyer gets old and yells at clouds. Now do Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Now do Thomas. Thomas is what happens when Sleepy the Dwarf becomes a Justice
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Now do Thomas. Anita Hill shudders at the thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:No, you're absolutely correct. That's part of why this faux-issue wasn't raised earlier. From the opinion: quote:After all, the Definitely a drafting error. The opinion is actually an easy read for a layman (IANAL and I read it just fine), I think everyone should give it a read. Won't take more than 10 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Thomas is what happens when a lawyer happens to be a honey badger whose sole desire is for it to be 1795.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:I would like Scalia to be kept around as a tenth man on the court even after he retires, solely so that he can be called in like a designated hitter to write hilariously childish dissents. Avatars of Satan cannot retire nor die, Scalia shall be eternal unto the court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Clarence Thomas is without precedent 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Adar posted:Thomas is what happens when a lawyer happens to be a honey badger whose sole desire is for it to be 1795. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
This has just hosed the Republican primary candidates now too. As this will be 100% a question in any debate they will have. They will have no option to clamber over each other to say they will repeal it as president day one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:This has just hosed the Republican primary candidates now too. Please Look Forward to them doing the same thing with a Federal marriage amendment 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Please Look Forward to them doing the same thing with a Federal marriage amendment Oh man, they're going to shoot themselves in the foot so badly during the primary to placate the base. Going to be interesting to watch. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Yeah, they are already beating the "we don't care what the supreme court affirmed for the second time, we still want to repeal it" drum, which is (hopefully) going to ring empty with most voters. Polls show that most americans currently think that democrats have a better plan for healthcare, that most people who actually have ACA insurance like it regardless of party affiliation, etc. But goddamn the republicans just will not give up on this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:This has just hosed the Republican primary candidates now too. Yeah, but the alternative is that if the ruling had gone the other way they'd all have to be constantly answering the question "what the hell will you do to give all these people who you took health insurance from back some health insurance?" I'm willing to bet Cruz, Rubio, Paul, and Graham weren't too keen on having the country look to Congress to clean up that mess. Well, maybe Cruz because he just wants to watch the world burn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:"And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Yeah, but the alternative is that if the ruling had gone the other way they'd all have to be constantly answering the question "what the hell will you do to give all these people who you took health insurance from back some health insurance?" For 5 years and counting they have had no plan and still have bumbled being asked about it. Like Ryan/Romney did. But now they can't bumble, its either full repeal or make it sound they will allow Big Government which make Baby Zombie Reagan cry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Yeah, they are already beating the "we don't care what the supreme court affirmed for the second time, we still want to repeal it" drum, which is (hopefully) going to ring empty with most voters. Polls show that most americans currently think that democrats have a better plan for healthcare, that most people who actually have ACA insurance like it regardless of party affiliation, etc. But goddamn the republicans just will not give up on this. Of course they won't; the minute Americans accept this, a single-payer option becomes more acceptable, and you can just hear Tea Partiers' collective rear end in a top hat twinge with worry at the thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Of course they won't; the minute Americans accept this, a single-payer option becomes more acceptable, and you can just hear Tea Partiers' collective rear end in a top hat twinge with worry at the thought. Also Wall Street investors who get their dicks hard from drug companies dragging out patents on medications so that affordable generics can't be produced
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:For 5 years and counting they have had no plan and still have bumbled being asked about it. Yeah, but its all been theoretical. If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way than they'd be constantly confronted with people saying "I had health insurance under Obamacare and now I don't because you guys won. So what now? How will you help me because my life's worse than it was under Obamacare." Now they can just keep on all the theoretical chest pumping and blow hard stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
There was no good ending, I feel like, for King v. Burwell for the GOP. The subsidies have been upheld, and millions of people can now exhale, but the candidates in the primary now have to thump their chest and go "ME WILL REPEAL ON DAY ONE!" as loud as they can, which will turn off a lot of people who are going "ehhhhh I have health insurance now and I won't if you guys win". If the subsidies had not been upheld, the GOP wins by screwing millions out of their health insurance and one-upping Obama, sure--but they hand Democrats a bat the size of East Texas to beat them over the head with in a Presidential year when turnout normally favors Democrats anyway. Hillary turns her campaign into a one-issue juggernaut and gallops to victory, and the remaining members of FreeRepublic.com all have anger strokes at the same time and die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:44
|
|