|
Dead Reckoning posted: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. That's not what he's doing though.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's not what he's doing though. I'm pretty sure that's what he thinks he's doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
radical meme posted:So in the dissent in the Texas Dept. of Housing case, Thomas had this to say: Also that whole Jews being a minority "own[ing] or direct[ing] more than half of whole industries" in Poland thing totally worked out great for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted: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? Here's the gist, basically a Cliffsnotes of the opinion. Roberts describes the reasons that the ACA was enacted. As he sees it, there are three main pillars of the act: 1) Guaranteed Issue and Community Rating requirements, meaning insurers cannot deny coverage to anyone, and they cannot charge different rates to different people on the basis of their health. 2) Coverage Mandate, requiring nearly everyone to buy health insurance. 3) The pillar in question: A subsidy scheme, giving people who would not otherwise be able to afford insurance enough money to buy insurance in the form of a tax credit that's paid directly to the insurer and used to lower/eliminate the person's premium. He explains the history of healthcare reforms in various states since the early 1990s that have enacted one or two of these provisions, but not all of them, and describes why the failure to adopt all three led to the inevitable failure of the entire system. He then describes Massachusetts' program, which succeeded, and upon which the ACA was explicitly based. He notes that the law was specifically constructed to include all three provisions with a Congressional understanding that failing to include all three provisions will necessarily make the act unworkable and lead to its failure. He makes various citations to back up his arguments, one of which is the fact that all three of these provisions took effect on the same day. He reasons that Congress would not have designed the law in a way that would necessarily cause it to fail, and thus finds the strict textual interpretation to be without merit. Specifically undercutting the argument, he points out: 1) "oftentimes the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” So when deciding whether the language is plain, we must read the words “in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Our duty, after all, is “to construe statutes, not isolated provisions.” 2) In other places, the ACA says that if a State does not set up an exchange, the Federal Government will set up and operate "such exchange". Quoting: "In other words, State Exchanges and Federal Exchanges are equivalent—they must meet the same requirements, perform the same functions, and serve the same purposes. Although State and Federal Exchanges are established by different sovereigns, Sections 18031 and 18041 do not suggest that they differ in any meaningful way." 3) In other places, the ACA uses the term "Exchanges" to mean "Exchanges established under section 18031" which is the section that specifies "State" exchanges. He points out that if this strict interpretation is applied, literally none of "Exchange"-related portions of the legislation would apply to Federal Exchanges, even though Federal Exchanges were explicitly contemplated by and allowed for in the ACA. A strict reading turns the entire act into nonsense. These three things, among many other examples, establish that the phrase "established by the State" is ambiguous in the statute. Resolving this ambiguity requires deference to this principle: “A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme . . . because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” He ties this reasoning back to the opening - that without all three pillars, the entire ACA would fall - and reasons that the textual interpretation doesn't live up to this principle, as it would create the very problem the scheme was designed to prevent and thereby lead to the failure of the entire act. I know that wasn't brief, but it's a good summary I think. Sub Par fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Basically, "they designed the act to work as intended and the intended operation based on a reading of the full text is X, Y, and Z. Isolating a sentence regarding Z from this context and assigning it alternate meaning out of the ambiguity allowed through that lack of context would destroy the function of the act and it's goddamn obvious the law was intended to loving work, you clownshoe retards, not to be some magic spell that sends you too far forward in time if you forget one word and just cough over it."Dead Reckoning posted: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. There's interpretation and then there's poo poo like sovereigns do where they claim no laws can bind them in joinder because their name is case-sensitive thus the debt judgment against them is not actually against them since the caption block on the order has their name in all caps. Sometimes you have to put your foot down and interpret a law comprehensively rather than lighting everything on fire because when taken out of context, a half-sentence sounds bad. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:
Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
radical meme posted:So in the dissent in the Texas Dept. of Housing case, Thomas had this to say: It follows that the most mentally unbalanced of U.S. presidents would add one of the most mentally unbalanced justices to the supreme court
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Lebanese in West Africa? Alright I'm not the only one this stood out to
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:It follows that the most mentally unbalanced of U.S. presidents would add one of the most mentally unbalanced justices to the supreme court I'm sorry that Bush had to raise taxes, but that isn't evidence of him being mentally unbalanced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
radical meme posted:So in the dissent in the Texas Dept. of Housing case, Thomas had this to say: What's great too is that you could argue the large number of minorities in the NBA is proof in and of itself that racial disparity is a huge issue. Advancement into professional sports is one of the few visible ladders for socio-economic advancement, and it doesn't require a strong education that many minorities in poor areas don't have access to. Hell, it is a road to strong education as well. Saying that lots of black people play professional basketball is proof that they're not disadvantaged by the system is an incredibly shallow train of thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Alright I'm not the only one this stood out to Yeah, if anyone knows more about this, please tell me, I'd like to learn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Yeah, if anyone knows more about this, please tell me, I'd like to learn. There's a Wikipedia page on the subject of Lebanese traders in Sierra Leone. Apparently they came to West Africa following a 'silk-worm crisis' in Lebanon back when it was still part of the Ottoman Empire. quote:At first, they had little access to capital and little control of import or export; they were at the mercy of the large colonial merchant firms, the same as indigenous traders. They brought imported manufactured goods such as textiles, jewellery, and mirrors to rural areas where European and creole traders would not go, and traded them for local agricultural produce, primary palm kernels and kola nuts. As they expanded their trading interests into the interior, they gained some commercial power. However, they were blamed for a 1919 rice scarcity, and riots broke out against them in which their shops were looted. Even the colonial authorities, traditionally seen as the patrons of the Lebanese, did not protect them; instead, they deported two Lebanese traders blamed for causing the shortages. This was one of the first major incidents that contributed to the Lebanese having a negative image in Sierra Leone. Chelb fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Yeah, if anyone knows more about this, please tell me, I'd like to learn. Yeah, the Lebanese are everywhere in west Africa for some reason. A large number of importers, especially for western clients and the local wealthy/powerful, are owned by them. So grocery stores, electronics dealers and cars are heavily Lebanese. Which is totally fine with me because they brought shawarma with them. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Basically, Scalia believes that if congress screws up by writing a law that is vague, then its fine to try to determine the intent when interpreting the law. However, if congress screws up and writes a law where the meaning of the words is clear, but the result is the opposite of what they intended, too bad, the meaning of the law is clear, we can't fix it for you, there's nothing to interpret. The majority in this case said that as a general principle they usually agree with putting more weight on the clear text of the law over the intent and that its up to congress to fix their error, but this particular case was so egregious, where the intent was so obvious and the text of the law would lead to such a disastrous and absurd result, that they'll go ahead and rely on intent more than the text of the law for this case. It can be dangerous ground, Scalia's complaint isn't utterly crazy (well it is crazy in the specifics for this case, but not generally speaking) because we don't want the courts to go hog-wild on interpreting every law based on what they think was intended instead of what was written, but this was probably a case where its fine to make a rare exception and correct a clear and horribly destructive error.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Sydin posted:What's great too is that you could argue the large number of minorities in the NBA is proof in and of itself that racial disparity is a huge issue. Advancement into professional sports is one of the few visible ladders for socio-economic advancement, and it doesn't require a strong education that many minorities in poor areas don't have access to. Hell, it is a road to strong education as well. Saying that lots of black people play professional basketball is proof that they're not disadvantaged by the system is an incredibly shallow train of thought. It's only shallow because you don't seem to understand what he said. While it may be true that certain groups are disadvantaged, either "by the system" or because they migrated to a new place without any capital, the point remains that the "system" that hires basketball players is patently not racially discriminatory, even though it results in enormous racial disparities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
An important feature of Scalia's textual jurisprudence is that it applies only when it gives him the political outcome he wants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Counterpoint: Utility Air Counter-counterpoint: Raich
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
DOOP posted:Sorry bout the VRA tho I think Roberts was right. At some point "Because you were naughty in the past" needs to be reevaluated. If Congress wasn't dysfunctional as gently caress they would have amended the bill with a better criteria. Should the Supreme Court really change their opinions based on how hosed up Congress is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Xae posted:I think Roberts was right. At some point "Because you were naughty in the past" needs to be reevaluated. Congress last evaluated that criteria in 2006 and extended the provisions until 2031 as a result of their hearings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Congress last evaluated that criteria in 2006 and extended the provisions until 2031 as a result of their hearings. That criteria was absurdly outdated. It was extended for political reasons, not based on anything rational.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:So is Roberts cool again Roberts is still a punk bitch, nothing has changed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Xae posted:I think Roberts was right. At some point "Because you were naughty in the past" needs to be reevaluated. If the ruling is on the condition of congress fixing it think some consideration of the status of congress is in order.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Xae posted:I think Roberts was right. At some point "Because you were naughty in the past" needs to be reevaluated. They did. Congress re-evaluated the criteria and the places under examination in 2006, when they re-authorized the bill. This idea that they hadn't done so is pure fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:That criteria was absurdly outdated. It was extended for political reasons, not based on anything rational. So when congress passes laws for "political reasons, not based on anything rational" they should be struck down? Would there be any laws left?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:So when congress passes laws for "political reasons, not based on anything rational" they should be struck down? Did you read the decision?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Xae posted:I think Roberts was right. At some point "Because you were naughty in the past" needs to be reevaluated. You mean like when they reauthorized in the VRA in 2006, looking at more recent evidence and deciding that the old Section 4 formula was still warranted? Northjayhawk posted:That criteria was absurdly outdated. It was extended for political reasons, not based on anything rational. Not really though - the 2006 authorization was not predicated solely on the original stuff from the original formulation. I mean you can disagree with the formula but it wasn't left unmodified just because.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
My favorite part of the Shelby County opinion was that they used the success of the VRA to remedy disparities as evidence that they did not need the VRA to remedy disparities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:That criteria was absurdly outdated. It was extended for political reasons, not based on anything rational. The criteria was based on old events, but any jurisdiction with a clean record could bail-out by just not loving with the voting rights of minorities for a period of 10 years. The fact that so many jurisdictions remain on the list is indicative that they have a history of violating the voting rights of minority groups and can't go 10 years without violating said rights. In such instances, why the gently caress should we be letting those jurisdictions get away from preclearance?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Adar posted:Taft was the last and only pres -> SCOTUS appointee for a reason* Wait, what makes W an outlier on the low side? He just went back to his ranch to paint and clear brush rather than going on speaking tours?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:My favorite part of the Shelby County opinion was that they used the success of the VRA to remedy disparities as evidence that they did not need the VRA to remedy disparities. Or, as Ginsberg (I think) put it, it's like standing outside in pouring rain under an umbrella, and then observing that you're dry, therefore you have no need of the umbrella.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Wait, what makes W an outlier on the low side? He just went back to his ranch to paint and clear brush rather than going on speaking tours? Nobody wants to pay that idiot to speak to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nobody wants to pay that idiot to speak to them. I just saw on my Facebook feed that lol means Lucifer our Lord. So parents, watch out for your kids in their chatting rooms. I'd love to hear W speak, why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Has anyone talked about how this corresponds with Roberts' theoretical NFIB opinion where the mandate got severed? Today's decision contained a lot about how the mandate is intertwined with the rest of the ACA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Nobody wants to pay that idiot to speak to them. Since 2009, POLITICO has found, Bush has given at least 200 paid speeches and probably many more, typically pocketing $100,000 to $175,000 per appearance. The part-time work, which rarely requires more than an hour on stage, has earned him tens of millions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Since 2009, POLITICO has found, Bush has given at least 200 paid speeches and probably many more, typically pocketing $100,000 to $175,000 per appearance. The part-time work, which rarely requires more than an hour on stage, has earned him tens of millions of dollars. That seems to be about half of what the Clintons make, though. I did like this line from the article though: quote:Last month, at SMU, Bush gave the commencement speech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That seems to be about half of what the Clintons make, though. Half, you say? Why... it's almost like both of the Clintons are politicians!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:They did. Congress re-evaluated the criteria and the places under examination in 2006, when they re-authorized the bill. This idea that they hadn't done so is pure fantasy. SCOTUS: "Racism is over and its mean to keep punishing these fine upstanding states." Preclearance States: "yay! Oh, btw, here's a bunch of changes we decided to push through to our elections... No relation to the VRA ending! See you at the polls!". 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted: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? Isn't he the person who immediately flip-flopped from the VRA to Shelby? Where he basically made the argument of "well I'm in the majority so X is right" then in a dissent that came out a day or so apart he said "I'm dissenting and X is wrong." He's a shameless fucker and I think it was a State's Rights thing. Northjayhawk posted:That criteria was absurdly outdated. It was extended for political reasons, not based on anything rational. Agreed. It's not like a bunch of those states passed politically-motivated voter restrictions afterwards, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Wait, what makes W an outlier on the low side? He just went back to his ranch to paint and clear brush rather than going on speaking tours? He sold the ranch and moved back to Martha's Vineyard between the election and inauguration or pretty much as soon as he didn't need to pretend to be a cowboy anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Agreed. It's not like a bunch of those states passed politically-motivated voter restrictions afterwards, right? Voter ID laws, while probably paranoid and not necessary, are not an absurdly evil racist plot. We don't live in Jim Crow anymore. We don't have poll taxes and nakedly racist, horrendous laws aimed at cleverly skirting the Feds to deny the vote to certain races. The VRA (specifically the preclearance sections) was an extraordinary law that should normally not be permitted, but was necessary for a time to deal with aggressive, weird, and extraordinary hostile and racist action by the states in our history. Preclearance is simply not needed anymore. If southern states want to gerrymander for political purposes and require ID at the polls, fine, whatever. Its not going to save the GOP's losing battle with demographics in the long run. Illinois isn't above being very creative with redistricting to maximize the Democrat vote. Northjayhawk fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:24
|
|