|
-Troika- posted:Concern trolling: a made up term that means "I disagree with you but I'm too dumb to explain why". Except it was explained in detail through out the storm of shitposting, only to be met by some bizarre combination of back pedaling and supposed puppetry.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2014 16:57 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 09:24 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9prhPV2PI They'd have done better with a grumpy dog for Scalia
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 19:14 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's worth noting that Scalia has seniority- any justice removed other than Scalia would result in him operating as chief justice in the interim. Removing Scalia would put Kennedy in the hotseat, which would be potentially beneficial, but there are others I'd like off the bench first. Not sure what you meant to say here, but that's not how the position of Chief Justice works. Chief Justice is a separate position to which a person must be nominated or confirmed. Roberts is Chief Justice, and so long as he is on the bench he remains Chief Justice, regardless of who else might step down or get removed. The only way Scalia would become interim Chief Justice is if Roberts stepped down, leaving the Chief Justice's seat vacant. In that case, Scalia would be Chief until confirmation of a replacement.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 20:34 |
Discendo Vox posted:It's worth noting that Scalia has seniority- any justice removed other than Scalia would result in him operating as chief justice in the interim. A sobering thought. Wait, are you saying that if Thomas dies or whatever, then Scalia becomes CJ and Roberts gets bumped down? Edit: beaten and answered. Never mind.
|
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 20:48 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:Your suspicion is correct. He spoke at a friend's law school. She asked him if in light of his philosophies on textual originalism, he thought Marbury v. Madison's position on judicial review was wrongly decided, and if so, should the Supreme Court just pack it up? Too bad he would never give a serious answer on that one.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 20:53 |
|
Randy Barnett has an originalist defense of Marbury that, if you're an originalist, is pretty strong: Jefferson understood "the judicial power" in Madison's draft to mean judicial review as we understand it, even though he was in France at the time, therefore the public understanding of "the judicial power" incorporated judicial review, therefore Marbury's cool
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 21:06 |
|
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 22:28 |
Not My Leg posted:Not sure what you meant to say here, but that's not how the position of Chief Justice works. Chief Justice is a separate position to which a person must be nominated or confirmed. Roberts is Chief Justice, and so long as he is on the bench he remains Chief Justice, regardless of who else might step down or get removed. The only way Scalia would become interim Chief Justice is if Roberts stepped down, leaving the Chief Justice's seat vacant. In that case, Scalia would be Chief until confirmation of a replacement. I added Scalia instead of Roberts once- good eye- I'l correct it.
|
|
# ? Oct 20, 2014 23:01 |
|
So I was listening to Against the Grain on KPFA and I heard and interview with Rob Hunter who wrote the Jacobin Piece, "Waiting for SCOTUS" and I heard his bio blurb included "politics, free software, history, and science fiction. I recently completed a Ph.D. in political science" so what I'm wondering is what is his SA Username?
|
# ? Oct 30, 2014 23:28 |
|
No idea, but that article is pretty lovely.quote:The Court’s conservatives began to reject the capacious understanding — arrived at during the New Deal — of Congress’ ability to regulate economic activity at the state level, striking down the Gun-Free School Zones Act and part of the Violence Against Women Act. (Exceptions were made for Congress’ ability to pursue conservative policy objectives, such as using federal law to undo state-level efforts to liberalize drug laws.) quote:It’s not too late — it’s never too late — to join in the search for a politics in which judicial interference with democracy is not only unnecessary but unthinkable. "gently caress the Bill of Rights, I can't think of any repercussions except full communism, of course."
|
# ? Oct 31, 2014 00:27 |
|
SCOTUS is holding a hearing Friday to determine if they will hear the Obamacare subsidies case. They will act before the DC Circuit rehearing occurs.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2014 20:34 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:SCOTUS is holding a hearing Friday to determine if they will hear the Obamacare subsidies case. They will act before the DC Circuit rehearing occurs. welp, bend over again poors, big daddy J-Rob gonna put you in your place.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 00:53 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:SCOTUS is holding a hearing Friday to determine if they will hear the Obamacare subsidies case. They will act before the DC Circuit rehearing occurs. Is this the stupid case that tries to say that the federal exchange isn't a state exchange and is not eligible for subsidy?
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 13:34 |
|
Yeah, the argument is that according to the letter of what is in the ACA, if a state refused to set up their own exchange, people in that state who have to use the federal exchange instead should not be allowed to get their plans subsidized. They claim the law says that a state exchange is the only way you can get your plan subsidized, which is ludicrous. But there are several right wing groups suing over Obamacare on issues like this because they believe if they find just the right weakness in the legislation, SCOTUS will act and then decimate the bill. Obviously if they decide to take this, it's not a good sign. But it would be kind of odd if Roberts did, since he basically saved the law from death two years ago.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 14:19 |
Also it sounds like the most blatantly political rules-lawyering that would make them an absolute laughing stock if they actually cared about that. IANAL so maybe it has merit but from a layman's perspective the argument is absolutely absurd, especially considering the guy that wrote it says they are wrong (yes that wouldn't be the first time).
|
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 14:24 |
|
Radish posted:Also it sounds like the most blatantly political rules-lawyering that would make them an absolute laughing stock if they actually cared about that. IANAL so maybe it has merit but from a layman's perspective the argument is absolutely absurd, especially considering the guy that wrote it says they are wrong (yes that wouldn't be the first time). One of the newish developments after the DC court decision is that people discovered video and audio of the guy who wrote it saying the opposite in January 2012 (after it was already passed but before HHS released their rules) complete with reasoning for why federal exchanges can't get subsidies. He has gone back on this and called it a "speak-o, like a typo". Not as important as what the law actually says or whether it's ambiguous, but it provides evidence that the situation isn't completely absurd. I still see it as political lawyering, but they do have an argument. The Gruber quote for context: quote:Questioner: You mentioned the health-information [sic] Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states. A lot of the new briefs in these cases reflect this information. esquilax fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Nov 4, 2014 |
# ? Nov 4, 2014 15:18 |
|
the other interpretation of that quote being "if you're a state and you don't set up your exchange, the federal government might not have theirs running" (which it didn't) "so your citizens might not get their subsidized health care"
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 15:21 |
|
serious question...isn't ALL constitutional litigation "rules lawyering"?
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 15:27 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:the other interpretation of that quote being "if you're a state and you don't set up your exchange, the federal government might not have theirs running" (which it didn't) "so your citizens might not get their subsidized health care" True, but the other audio doesn't really talk about timelines, just setting up exchanges or losing subsidies. Since I didn't want to transcribe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbMmWhfZyEI I think he was actually confused about the subsidies on the exchanges versus the other provisions around this, like medicaid expansion and the few million in subsidies for setting up an exchange. Regardless of the truth, this is already playing a role in the legal debate.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 15:29 |
|
Working example of rules lawyering: My name in the subpoena is in all caps, my true name is in upper and lower case letters, therefore your subpoena is directed at a fictitious thrall of the federal government and I don't have to pay taxes, also the flag here has gold fringes so this is an admiralty court, YOU HAVE NO POWER OVER ME!
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 15:46 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yeah, the argument is that according to the letter of what is in the ACA, if a state refused to set up their own exchange, people in that state who have to use the federal exchange instead should not be allowed to get their plans subsidized. They claim the law says that a state exchange is the only way you can get your plan subsidized, which is ludicrous. But there are several right wing groups suing over Obamacare on issues like this because they believe if they find just the right weakness in the legislation, SCOTUS will act and then decimate the bill. Obviously if they decide to take this, it's not a good sign. But it would be kind of odd if Roberts did, since he basically saved the law from death two years ago. Could Roberts just want to punt this thing on standing? Standing in this case was never very clear to me.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 16:00 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:Could Roberts just want to punt this thing on standing? Standing in this case was never very clear to me. The 4th circuit agreed that they have standing, it's weird but it's solid.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 16:09 |
|
esquilax posted:One of the newish developments after the DC court decision is that people discovered video and audio of the guy who wrote it saying the opposite in January 2012 (after it was already passed but before HHS released their rules) complete with reasoning for why federal exchanges can't get subsidies. Sort of irrelevant though, as the opinion of one guy involved in drafting has nothing to do with Congress' views and everyone else in the world thought the opposite of that quote. I mean, yes, one person said it would work that way, but people deny climate change too. It's not even really legislative history in the standard meaning, and the current Court is suspicious of normal legislative history as an interpretive guide, much less this kind of external descriptive statement. If they cite it in ruling against - which would surprise me - expect a pretty scathing dissent with lots of Scalia quotes about legislative history.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 16:25 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:serious question...isn't ALL constitutional litigation "rules lawyering"? Not in this thread.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 17:33 |
|
"Rules lawyering" means you're acting like a lawyer in an inappropriate context. Arguing before a court is an appropriate context.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 17:46 |
|
Kalman posted:Sort of irrelevant though, as the opinion of one guy involved in drafting has nothing to do with Congress' views and everyone else in the world thought the opposite of that quote. I mean, yes, one person said it would work that way, but people deny climate change too. It's not even really legislative history in the standard meaning, and the current Court is suspicious of normal legislative history as an interpretive guide, much less this kind of external descriptive statement. Yeah I agree, you elipsed out the part where I said that. What the chief architect of the bill said or thought is not as important as what the law actually says or whether it's ambiguous, but it does provide evidence that the resulting situation isn't completely absurd. If Scalia were to use the quote, I have a feeling he would use it as an argument for textualism - using congressional intent and legislative history isn't useful and is unclear its very nature, because people hold different opinions and have their own thoughts. haveblue posted:"Rules lawyering" means you're acting like a lawyer in an inappropriate context. Arguing before a court is an appropriate context. As opposed to, say, second amendment interpretation where both sides generally believe in their interpretations.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 18:15 |
|
States rights prevent the federal government from offering a federal tax subsidy on a federal health insurance exchange.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 18:25 |
|
Zivotofsky v. Kerry was argued yesterday - it's a pretty interesting case about State Department passport policy re: people born in Jerusalem.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 18:28 |
|
esquilax posted:I can't speak for anyone else but I called it political lawyering because I don't believe the initial academic proponents of the "no subsidies" interpretation actually believed it was more than a typo or poor drafting. Though they may have convinced themselves as they developed their argument. Pretty much all constitutional litigation involves arguments over the nuances of word choices in specific pieces of legislation to some degree or another. And "poor drafting" is a pretty common reason for statutes to get overturned. If it's poorly written in such a way that it can be interpreted as unconstitutional and there isn't clear evidence of legislative intent to the contrary...then it's unconstitutional. This is an oversimplification, of course, but whining that someone is "rules lawyering" or "political lawyering" at SCOTUS is kind of like opening up an all you can eat buffet and whining when people go back for seconds.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 18:30 |
|
The Warszawa posted:Zivotofsky v. Kerry was argued yesterday - it's a pretty interesting case about State Department passport policy re: people born in Jerusalem. That's a really interesting case. Reading the coverage on it, I wonder if the analysis would be different if, for example, rather than ZOMG ISRAEL!!!! the issue in question was a family from "Taiwan" not wanting to be documented as coming from "Chinese Taipei," and whether we would care as much about pissing off the Chinese as the Palestinians, or if that example was used in argument. (Too lazy to listen to full argument) But it seems we are somewhat picking and choosing when we choose to recognize a country's self-proclaimed sovereign borders and when we don't...which I suppose is the essence of executive foreign policy decision-making.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 18:37 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's a really interesting case. Reading the coverage on it, I wonder if the analysis would be different if, for example, rather than ZOMG ISRAEL!!!! the issue in question was a family from "Taiwan" not wanting to be documented as coming from "Chinese Taipei," and whether we would care as much about pissing off the Chinese as the Palestinians, or if that example was used in argument. (Too lazy to listen to full argument) But it seems we are somewhat picking and choosing when we choose to recognize a country's self-proclaimed sovereign borders and when we don't...which I suppose is the essence of executive foreign policy decision-making. That's something that the US wouldn't do. Might as well ask "what if someone wanted their passport to say they're from Aztlan."
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 18:46 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:Could Roberts just want to punt this thing on standing? Standing in this case was never very clear to me.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 19:00 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:Reading the coverage on it, I wonder if the analysis would be different if, for example, rather than ZOMG ISRAEL!!!! the issue in question was a family from "Taiwan" not wanting to be documented as coming from "Chinese Taipei," and whether we would care as much about pissing off the Chinese as the Palestinians, or if that example was used in argument. (Too lazy to listen to full argument)
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 19:04 |
|
ulmont posted:That example came up in the argument. Well, nice to see my random trains of thought while avoiding real work are the stuff of high profile cases. There's hope for me yet. Seriously though...went to Hong Kong Rugby Sevens one year. Got hammered. Cheered *loudly* for Taiwan. Took pictures of all the local PRC officials giving me the stank-eye. It was glorious. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Nov 4, 2014 |
# ? Nov 4, 2014 19:09 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's a really interesting case. Reading the coverage on it, I wonder if the analysis would be different if, for example, rather than ZOMG ISRAEL!!!! the issue in question was a family from "Taiwan" not wanting to be documented as coming from "Chinese Taipei," and whether we would care as much about pissing off the Chinese as the Palestinians, or if that example was used in argument. (Too lazy to listen to full argument) But it seems we are somewhat picking and choosing when we choose to recognize a country's self-proclaimed sovereign borders and when we don't...which I suppose is the essence of executive foreign policy decision-making. Well, given that there's a specific rule that Taiwan will be written on request (instead of China, which is what would be written if no request is made)...
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 19:44 |
|
Kalman posted:Well, given that there's a specific rule that Taiwan will be written on request (instead of China, which is what would be written if no request is made)... Which is the reverse of putting a disputed larger area on the passport. quote:JUSTICE GINSBURG: I want and I must
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 19:50 |
|
Except that you cannot put Taiwan, China on your passport.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 19:58 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yeah, the argument is that according to the letter of what is in the ACA, if a state refused to set up their own exchange, people in that state who have to use the federal exchange instead should not be allowed to get their plans subsidized. They claim the law says that a state exchange is the only way you can get your plan subsidized, which is ludicrous. But there are several right wing groups suing over Obamacare on issues like this because they believe if they find just the right weakness in the legislation, SCOTUS will act and then decimate the bill. Obviously if they decide to take this, it's not a good sign. But it would be kind of odd if Roberts did, since he basically saved the law from death two years ago. Let's see what Obama and the dems have been saying about this recently, what with the elections and all. ... ... ... ....yeah I can't imagine why the dems are seen as ineffectual political garbage. Radish posted:Also it sounds like the most blatantly political rules-lawyering that would make them an absolute laughing stock if they actually cared about that. IANAL so maybe it has merit but from a layman's perspective the argument is absolutely absurd, especially considering the guy that wrote it says they are wrong (yes that wouldn't be the first time). I'd be shocked if more than a couple justices care about what the guy says beyond "write better next time" and I can't imagine his claim is going to be what sways anyone one way or the other.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2014 20:00 |
|
Enjoy something lighter
|
# ? Nov 6, 2014 17:58 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 09:24 |
|
Awww yeeeaah, the Sixth Circuit Splits on SSM. The Dissenting judge even joked that the majority may have issues their opinion just to send it to the Supremes.
|
# ? Nov 7, 2014 02:51 |