|
I don't think that King going the other way would have been a boon for Hillary and the Dems. The Republicans would have been in total lockstep on every media outlet on how Obama and the Democrats passed this flawed law and it was their fault for passing it without reading it and blah blah blah, and I don't think the democrats could have created a coherent enough media narrative to counteract it.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
SLOSifl posted:Second opinion:  A good day.  Good lord, if Roberts is also in the majority upholding SSM he is going to be RINO #1 in the right wing's eyes. Drone posted:From Scalia's dissent: "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare." New thread title? SCOTUS 2015: Scalia - we should call this law SCOTUScare The Warszawa posted:Quick rundown of what's left: I'm still pretty worried about the Arizona case and if they win red states are going to remain GOP held indefinitely when they continue to gerrymander in absurdly effective ways on top of their usual voter suppression. Given the VRA I see this going as a win for conservatives but I really hope they lose because anything that could move us towards Gerrymandering becoming illegal or at least less frequent is a good thing. 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'm skeptical of Roberts caring about Congress fixing anything regarding Citizens United. Given their utterly bullshit view on corruption I doubt he has much remorse beyond "well I did this but after these last few rulings the GOP at large hates me anyways." alnilam posted:Thought you might all enjoy this round-up of cases with nice graphics depicting who ruled which way Considering how little I hear Breyer's name mentioned I could see him being one of the most liberal with RBG since they're both pretty locked in on left-leaning rulings (exception being when a right leaning one would be a pretty clear correct decision, like if someone wanted to ban guns entirely it'd get shot down 9-0). Kennedy being dead center sounds about right and Roberts being to his right seems dead on as well at this point. Kagan and Sotomayor seem like a tossup so far and the remaining three prime evils of conservatism can fight over the far right. Though if Roberts ultimately ends up getting pushed to the left because of the insanity of the far right I'm ok with that. He's going to be around for decades so having him ultimately turn in to Kennedy 2.0 would be about the best people here could hope from him but considering some past rulings he's made 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Did anyone else talk about the ruling in the Texas department of housing case? That's s big deal. Phone posting so I can't put s link.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks gerrymanders can hold indefinitely are quite misinformed as to how they work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
T___A posted:If/when Hollis v Holder reaches SCOTUS how do you think the court rule? Is there any chance of the machine gun ban being overturned? The larger constitutional claims actually seem like they have some merit, in that the federal government only has the power to tax NFA items, not to ban them outright, and the ATF has been incredibly lazy in their justifications for upholding the ban. ("Machine guns can be regulated because they are rare and unusual rather than common weapons... in part because of government-created artificial scarcity.") That said, I think most of the justices would be quite keen to avoid crafting a ruling saying, "lol machine guns can be manufactured again." The other interesting part is the allegation that the ATF has transferred post-86 machine guns to individuals, which I'd like to see get to discovery. Most likely though, the court will just decline to hear it and save themselves a lot of headache.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
But where did Justice Goldberg come down on this issue?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted: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 19:23
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted: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. Voter initiatives that bypass the legislature suck, though. You want to talk about money in politics... errad posted:I'm really happy with the end result - but I'm worried that this is bad jurisprudence. Not even remotely. The textualist argument that King was making is warped to the point of being nonsensical. I'm still skimming, but the majority opinion is very well argued (especially choosing not to apply Chevron). These decisions were completely fine and well-supported. To the extent that there are badly reasoned political justifications anywhere, they're coming from the anti-ACA side here. There are places where liberal, legal realist decisions do harm the rule of law (I'm a massive formalist), but this ain't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted: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." Oh no, they'd have to spend upwards of 5 seconds spinning out a word salad of buzzwords, nonsense, and unkeepable promises before dissmissing the question! The horror! Seriously: "I lost my health insurance due to the repeal of Obamacare, what are you going to do to help me?" "The beauty of America is that we are a free country with lots of opportunity. Our freedom is our strength and, I assure you from the bottom of my heart that, my first day in office, I will fight for your rights and freedoms and sit down with Congress to create a solution that benefits hard working Americans while opening up new avenues to help bring costs down and make healthcare available to all thank you and god bless nextquestionplease."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Yeah, letting lovely things happen in order to force Republicans to do something in reaction is about the worst strategy imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Why is Scalia using "pure applesauce" as a negative thing? Applesauce is awesome, and the more pure it is the better it is
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Voter initiatives that bypass the legislature suck, though. You want to talk about money in politics... I don't care that much about weed, but these are the only reason that weed is now legal in CO, WA, OR, and AK. Prop 8/13/etc. sucked but A64 in Colorado is keeping minorities out of jail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Voter initiatives that bypass the legislature suck, though. You want to talk about money in politics... Besides, it's not all terrible, and sometimes is pretty good! Witness Nebraska's minimum wage hike, Colorado and Washington's legal weed, the Oregon and Washington Death with Dignity Acts, medical marijuana throughout the west, and Arizona's redistricting. When the state Legislatures aren't responsive to the people it's a decent tool. Not every state is as broken as California. EDIT: It's a signature part of the politics of the western US, and it's not going away, so might as well make the best of it. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Yeah, letting lovely things happen in order to force Republicans to do something in reaction is about the worst strategy imaginable. I wasn't suggesting that it should have gone the other way. No way am I one of those accelerationists. I'm just saying that while the Republicans lost this one I think it ends up working out better for them in the short run at least since it lets them keep ranting about the tyranny of Washington. If they had won then some people might have expected them to do something. When the field is filled with sitting Senators and Governors of states where millions would have lost insurance I think that could have been a much bigger pain in the rear end then just doubling down on the same "appeal Obamacare" rhetoric they've been yelling for years. But I don't care, its still a good thing and a happy day. I just think its a happy day for Conservatives too because what would they have if they couldn't rail against the tyranny of the left and death of America?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Why is Scalia using "pure applesauce" as a negative thing? Applesauce is awesome, and the more pure it is the better it is Probably because screaming THIS IS loving BULLSHIT in a dissent is frowned upon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Echoing whoever mentioned giving the King opinion a read. IANAL and it was perfectly understandable, I particularly enjoyed Roberts backing his argument for state and federal exchanges being identical according to the ACA by citing the dictionary definition of "such".  Also he points out just how loving terrible things would have gotten if the subsidies had been removed. Not only would it have completely hosed everybody below the poverty line, the ACA forcing insurance companies to treat everybody as a shared risk pool means that the effects of the death spiral would have quickly rippled out to people who didn't even buy insurance on the exchanges as well. Basically we just dodged the health insurance sector completely collapsing on the poor and a solid chunk of the middle class. Basically Republicans are morons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't care that much about weed, but these are the only reason that weed is now legal in CO, WA, OR, and AK. Prop 8/13/etc. sucked but A64 in Colorado is keeping minorities out of jail. It also is going to add almost $60 million dollars to the CO state treasury through taxes alone this year so that's a good thing too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Why is Scalia using "pure applesauce" as a negative thing? Applesauce is awesome, and the more pure it is the better it is Like Javid said, I have a great mental picture of Scalia originally writing "Pure bullshit." and a lowly clerk going "Boss, I'm just... going... to change this, okay?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
So, if they do plan to release the opinion for Obgerfell vs Hodges tomorrow, we want them to vacate and remand, correct? If they affirm in their opinion, it means they agree with Ohio's ban just as the 6th Circuit did? Trying to make sure I understand the terminology for the live blog in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
I'm not american, nor have I read many American Supreme Court cases, but after skimming this decision, does scalia even give a poo poo about the intention of legislation before ruling on it? Because why would congress enact a broad health care law that would allow any state who disagreed with it to essentially under mine it? why would congress include the ability of the federal government to create the exchange if those federally created exchanges were unable to fulfil the purpose they were created for? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'm not american, nor have I read many American Supreme Court cases, but after skimming this decision, does scalia even give a poo poo about the intention of legislation before ruling on it? Because why would congress enact a broad health care law that would allow any state who disagreed with it to essentially under mine it? why would congress include the ability of the federal government to create the exchange if those federally created exchanges were unable to fulfil the purpose they were created for? No. That's like, his whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Yeah, letting lovely things happen in order to force Republicans to do something in reaction is about the worst strategy imaginable. The Warszawa posted:No. That's like, his whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Axel Serenity posted:So, if they do plan to release the opinion for Obgerfell vs Hodges tomorrow, we want them to vacate and remand, correct? If they affirm in their opinion, it means they agree with Ohio's ban just as the 6th Circuit did? Trying to make sure I understand the terminology for the live blog in the morning. Correct. Vacating the 6th circuit's ruling will expand same sex marriage rights to at least some degree. Exactly what degree that is will require some reading beyond the headline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'm still pretty worried about the Arizona case and if they win red states are going to remain GOP held indefinitely when they continue to gerrymander in absurdly effective ways on top of their usual voter suppression. Given the VRA I see this going as a win for conservatives but I really hope they lose because anything that could move us towards Gerrymandering becoming illegal or at least less frequent is a good thing. It's sorta been said before, but the facts of this particular case means that only Arizona's and California's maps will be invalidated, as those are the only two states where the legislature did not play a role in setting the commissions up or in approving the maps drawn up by said commissions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'm not american, nor have I read many American Supreme Court cases, but after skimming this decision, does scalia even give a poo poo about the intention of legislation before ruling on it? Because why would congress enact a broad health care law that would allow any state who disagreed with it to essentially under mine it? why would congress include the ability of the federal government to create the exchange if those federally created exchanges were unable to fulfil the purpose they were created for? Partly because the US uses a common law system rather than having a civil code that interpretations can be extrapolated from, so the assumption outright is that the words have to be highly particular and there are varying levels of agreement on how faithful you need to be to the wording. In Scalia's case, he tends to take a very 'literal' view of legal text (to the point where, in a criminal case, Scalia ruled that because the victim in a rape case has a screen between her and the defendant, the defendant had not been given the opportunity to 'face' his accuser and thus had the case remanded) that is basically an excuse to say what he likes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
So is Roberts cool again
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't care that much about weed, but these are the only reason that weed is now legal in CO, WA, OR, and AK. Prop 8/13/etc. sucked but A64 in Colorado is keeping minorities out of jail. There was also this, which had to be done via referendum because CA's legislature does whatever the police and prison guard unions tell it to do. http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_47,_Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_(2014)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:So is Roberts cool again Is the Voting Rights Act still alive?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:No. That's like, his whole thing. Huh I've read a bit about Scalia and his textualism. I would have thought that he would give a credence to the idea that you shouldn't interpret text in a legislation in such a way that would create an absurd result . Sort of thought that this would apply here. Though he seems to be a right-wing shill so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Huh I've read a bit about Scalia and his textualism. I would have thought that he would give a credence to the idea that you shouldn't interpret text in a legislation in such a way that would create an absurd result . Sort of thought that this would apply here. bhsman posted:In Scalia's case, he tends to take a very 'literal' view of legal text ...that is basically an excuse to say what he likes. Granted, sometimes this means he and Ginsberg team up to enforce privacy rights for homeowners against the police, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Can someone give me a very brief summary of why Scalia's interpretation is BS? Is it just that's he being overly pedantic and he would absolutely flip his decision if this concerned a law he supported?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
I love how the right is now calling 'not reading something out of context' 'moving to the left'
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Huh I've read a bit about Scalia and his textualism. I would have thought that he would give a credence to the idea that you shouldn't interpret text in a legislation in such a way that would create an absurd result . Sort of thought that this would apply here. Scalia's point (and it's not crazy in and of itself) is that the only document you have that can be said to express the intention of a legislature is the actual text of the law. Even legislative history only expresses the intentions of a limited set of lawmakers. So, given that, he feels it is inappropriate to import your own understanding of what was intended as if it was Congress's and use that to overturn the intention apparent from the text of the law. The problem here is that the intent that Roberts and co relied on is apparent in the text of the law anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Javid posted:Probably because screaming THIS IS loving BULLSHIT in a dissent is frowned upon. And "Horsefeathers!" would have been a little too 1920s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Huh I've read a bit about Scalia and his textualism. I would have thought that he would give a credence to the idea that you shouldn't interpret text in a legislation in such a way that would create an absurd result . Sort of thought that this would apply here. The problem is when you start separating individual clauses from the bill as a whole, or invalidate sections of law that have been the basis for years of accepted precedent because "it doesn't actually say that."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
So in the dissent in the Texas Dept. of Housing case, Thomas had this to say:quote:Racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities. At So what about that NBA, huh? Also, Ottoman Empire for the win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Lebanese in West Africa?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The idea is that the congress created the absurd result by writing a bad law, and it's not the court's role to bail them out by re-writing it to what they meant. It's not a bad idea in principle; people shouldn't be convicted of crimes that aren't explicitly defined as such under the law, even if they did something the law was meant to cover, and the executive branch shouldn't be able to exercise powers never granted to it because, "we interpreted the law that way" or "that's what Congress meant when they passed the bill." It also encourages the legislature to actually go through the process of creating logical and consistent law rather than just passing a bill on the assumption that the courts will figure out the details. But splitting off clauses or words off to analyze them without considering the context is something Scalia has said is bad. He has written in the past "The meaning of terms on the statute books ought to be determined, not on the basis of which meaning can be shown to have been understood by a larger handful of the Members of Congress; but rather on the basis of which meaning is (1) most in accord with context and ordinary usage, and thus most likely to have been understood by the whole Congress which voted on the words of the statute (not to mention the citizens subject to it), and (2) most compatible with the surrounding body of law into which the provision must be integrated-a compatibility which, by a benign fiction, we assume Congress always has in mind." There is pretty much no way to read the entire law and not come to the conclusion that the Federal Exchanges should have access to the subsidies. That leads to the real truth: Scalia only cares about textualism when it results in the decision he wants. He will adopt other schools of thought when convenient. Thomas is probably the most consistent Justice in sticking to a particular school of statutory and constitutional interpretation even when it results in conclusions he doesn't seem to like all that much. The trouble is that as far as anyone can tell there is no other person in the entire US that subscribes to it besides Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:There is pretty much no way to read the entire law and not come to the conclusion that the Federal Exchanges should have access to the subsidies. That leads to the real truth: Scalia only cares about textualism when it results in the decision he wants. He will adopt other schools of thought when convenient. All the more true when you factor in the other opinion today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
Oh, I'm not disagreeing that the majority came to the correct conclusion in King, just saying that the idea of reading laws strictly as written rather than as what was intended isn't necessarily some sort of horrible ideological gently caress-gently caress game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:47
|
|