|
The Warszawa posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Ginsburg the originator of the "not going to answer hypotheticals on law" approach to confirmation hearings? They absolutely were. Clinton's first SCOTUS appointment process was a notorious clusterfuck. Clinton offered it to Mario Cuomo, who accepted then retracted the offer at the last second. Afterwards, Clinton weighed selecting a clown car of bad picks: his wife, judges who were friends with himself/Al Gore, a member of the Alabama Supreme Court, George Mitchell, random high-powered lawyers, and even Stephen Breyer-who interviewed Clinton while loaded with painkillers and made a bad impression. Janet Reno eventually snapped and told Clinton to appoint Ginsburg.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Haha, I read some of this in the Stephanopoulos memoir, do you have any recommendations on the topic? Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine" talks about it a little bit, but I'm not sure if any book goes in depth on it. The Entire Universe posted:A lot of things can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. I think there's definitely a question of mechanism or intent at hand regarding the drugs/devices they are denying. Is it a microscopic chance kind of thing due to the mechanism of the drug/device? Or is it that the drug/device specifically was designed not to prevent conception but to prevent implantation? If the former I don't think they have much of a case, but the latter might float if they have the evidence to support it. It'd be a hard argument to say they can refuse coverage of drugs that (under exceedingly rare circumstances) allow fertilization but not implantation, but also allow coverage for procedures or drugs that have a similar (inadvertent and exceedingly rare but documented) effect. Might as well put a clause banning fertile women from driving while employed if that's the case, since you never know what an accident might do to a woman's uterus. Why should it matter if the plaintiffs can't prove the scientific accuracy of their religious objection? They wouldn't be able to prove God exists either, but that doesn't mean their religious objection isn't legitimate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Or for that matter they could simply not offer a health care plan and pay the fine. Fines can be burdensome on religion, but that burden can be balanced by other interests. You mean pay the tax! Thats one possible outcome I think gets overlooked-because the PPACA penalty is a tax, employers who fail to provide insurance effectively acts as one less tax break for businesses. The government wouldnt even be fining Hobby Lobby for its religious beliefs, its just denying them a tax break for voluntarily deciding not to offer a service.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
There's a movement in right wing circles to abolish the ninth circuit entirely, which given the lifetime tenure of judges, would wind up turning the 10th into a super circuit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
I personally hope Alito pulls a Pope Benedict, realizes he is terrible at his job and will never leave a lasting impression, and quits
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
So the Supreme Court just put out an amended Scalia dissent in Homer City, removing the erroneous citation. Some clerk is having a bad day
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:We should know which way a Justice is going to rule based on their interpretation of the law, not based on who appointed them. We look at Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. We read their opinions and they are often contradictory or nonsensical, or even invalidate previous opinions they have penned. Thomas is a bad example to use, because he is arguably one of the most idiosyncratic Justices in Supreme Court history. Thomas' radical brand of originalism and one-man crusade to make something out of the privileges or immunities clause makes his decisions pretty unpredictable
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
On the plus side, this decision is the greatest victory for Sharia law in American history
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
I'm a little unclear on this point: if RFRA were repealed, would Hobby Lobby still be good law?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This case is about how the RFRA applies to this situation. Its only based on the law, not the constitution. Thanks. I wasn't sure if the ruling was broad enough to impact the Free Exercise clause too, but I just read this line: "By enacting RFRA, Congress went far beyond what this Court has held is constitutionally required"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:If the federal government sets up an exchange under section 1311, that would be "an Exchange established by the Federal Government under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," not "an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Language isn't simply "unambiguous" when read in context of the sentence or paragraph it's located in. "Unambiguous" language can get really ambiguous really fast when it's read in the context of the entire act. The Eastern District of Virginia went into great detail on this issue in King v. Sebelius: "Plaintiffs aver that Congress's bargain backfired when, to the surprise of all, many states did not opt to create and run their own Exchanges. As such, Plaintiffs fundamentally contend that, to the extent that their reading of section 36B harms the implementation of the ACA, any adverse consequences are the result of a miscalculation by Congress. In contrast, Defendants argue that their interpretation of section 36B is correct because it furthers Congress's intent to provide affordable health insurance for all. Defendants support their argument, in part, by setting forth numerous statutory anomalies that Plaintiffs' reading would incur. Plaintiffs attempt to mitigate these anomalies by either declaring that they do not matter or that they are minimally disruptive to the implementation of the ACA." http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10966487854081938172&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr If the Halbig majority remains good law, Chevron analysis is made even more unpredictable and arbitrary than it already is. You could isolate any sentence, paragraph, or word to make it mean what you want it to mean.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I don't see how Chevron becomes more unpredictable and arbitrary. 1311 specifies two types of exchanges (those established by States, those established by the Federal Government). 36B points to only one of those types of exchanges (those established by States). Although this means 36B does not apply to the other type of exchanges, that fact in and of itself doesn't render 36B's language "ambiguous." The problem is that "ambiguity" in Chevron analyses doesn't mean "the words aren't subject to different interpretations." Chevron holds that language is "unambiguous" if the words make it clear that Congress has clearly spoken on an issue. If you read 36B in isolation, you could argue that Congress clearly held that only state-run exchanges could get subsidies. But when you read 36B in the context of the rest of the act, coming to that conclusion is absurd
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
This is how Google previews the Court's official transcript of the Fisher v. UT oral arguments. Seems appropiate
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Fisher, who is white, applied to the University of Texas at Austin under a program where all seniors in the top 10 percent of their class were automatically admitted. But she wasn't in the top 10 percent, so her application was considered with the rest in a holistic review process that accounted for academic achievements and extracurricular activities as well as race. Fisher wasn't accepted, though she claimed some of her minority peers with lower scores were. She sued on the grounds that the university policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and a district court ruled in favor of the school. She appealed, and the circuit court upheld the decision, Slate reported. Then she appealed to the Supreme Court. However, the university argued that Ms. Fisher's application would not have had a different verdict in any case. "Although one African-American and four Latino applicants with lower combined academic and personal achievement scores than Ms. Fisher’s were provisionally admitted, so were 42 white applicants whose scores were identical to or lower than hers. Similarly, 168 black and Latino students with academic and personal achievement profiles that were as good as, or better than, Ms. Fisher’s were also denied, according to the university," Elise Boddie, a law professor at Rutgers, wrote in the New York Times this week.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Ruling Fisher wouldn't have been admitted anyway is a bit like going after the standing of the people suing the NSA. Surely someone was affected, and the court ruling on the standing instead of the arguments is basically refusing to make a hard decision and letting the status quo win by default. The Fifth Circuit's original decision way back in 2011 held that Fisher lacked standing to sue for anything other than money damages arising out of being denied admission. The Supreme Court remanded the cases solely on the standard of review question, so the standing issue has presumably been decided. Interestingly enough, the Fifth Circuit's most recent order all but said "we now agree that Fisher lacks standing, but the Supreme Court tied our hands by narrowly limiting the scope of the remand order"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
fart blood posted:This whole thing is so absurd. Welcome to the wild west of ideologically-motivated constitutional litigation, where the plaintiffs don't matter. One of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell genuinely had no idea how she wound up a party to the case and never once spoke to any of the lawyers on the case.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
Sundae posted:How on earth does this even happen? Like, how can a court decide there is standing when the plaintiff has no idea she's even involved? I'm betting nobody got debarred for this either, did they? You can still have an actual case or controversy and have little to no involvement in the case. For the Burwell plaintiffs, they didn't have health insurance and lived in a state without a state-run healthcare exchange, and faced a penalty. There's not much more you need to show the court other than the fact that they exist. Odds are the plaintiffs signed up for something years before the case was even heard and got themselves lumped into the case. Abigail Fisher is a little unusual in this regard, since her attorneys have decided to make her a highly visible part of the proceedings.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 17:53
|
|