|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Considering now terribly that opinion is written, I hope they just did it to send it to SCOTUS.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
They can if they want to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
SCOTUS is going to hear the Burwell case, which is a really bad sign
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
I have to imagine that even if they don't outright take down the subsidies, they will do something akin to messing with the Medicaid expansion that will make things worse for people. I don't believe Roberts will completely remove the subsidies for states without exchanges, but he's going to do something we're going to hate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Roberts was the deciding vote on the ACA case to begin with, so this is really all on him as far as what he wants to do. So I assume the worst. Odds are he wants to make up for pissing off the right-wing when he upheld the law.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Radish posted:Do any of the SCOTUS Justices really care about party politics? I would guess when you get to the lifer position you just do whatever you want and go by your own personal biases. It's not like sucking up to the right wing is going to influence his career and I would think that how you are remembered in legal history would be more important than making sure politicians are happy. I'm not sure how that influences this decision though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
SCOTUS is back at work today, and an argument was heard in the free speech case involving a man who was charged with making death threats on social media to people and whether or not that can be classified as 'free speech'.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Does anyone have predictions on the pregnant worker rights case SCOTUS is hearing today?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:my guess is they will go for the plaintiff. the facts are not good for UPS, especially since they apparently accommodate drunk drivers. The plaintiff rarely had to lift over 20 lbs to begin with, so reassigning the few heavy boxes for a short period of time seems a much less burdensome accommodation than giving drunks a personal driver.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
How is the Washington Times even still operating? Weren't they in massive debt even before Moon died?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
WSJ has become pretty awful since Murdoch bought it. Before that it had much better writing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
SCOTUS ruled unanimously that workers are not entitled to overtime pay for going through burdensome security checks at work.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The problem, of course, being that al anwaki was not killed on the battlefield. And, as others have pointed out, that "process" can be "we had our lawyers look at it first and they said it's cool.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
The Bush OLC knew what they were doing when they decided to throw everyone in Guantanamo. Since they weren't technically POWs and not American citizens, and that base is not US soil or whatever, they are in a legal limbo. Plus after the torture it made it impossible for them to bring them to the US on charges, since their cases would likely be thrown out due to the mistreatment. So instead you half-rear end military tribunals which are also super secret and set up to insure that they never leave that island. Even when you try to bring the lesser people up for charges in the court system, Congress freaks out and makes that impossible. It's a horrible genius.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
I wish I knew how the attorneys representing Gitmo detainees even do that job. The stories they tell about all of the hoops they have to jump through while there are crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Maarek posted:After 9/11 we should have rebuilt the World Trade Center to look exactly like it did on 9/10, we should have tried the 'enemy combatants' in Federal court, and we should have taken Bin Laden alive and dragged his rear end into court clean shaven and in an orange jumpsuit just like a common criminal. If we had done those things we could have pretended we are still a nation that believes in the rule of law and one that isn't afraid of terrorists.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
'Dreamers' in Arizona are legally entitled to receive state driver licenses, in a 6-3 decision.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Ok the headlines were wrong then. I didn't have a chance to read the whole article.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
SCOTUS is taking on bans on solicitation in local judicial elections by candidates. I give you one chance to guess how this is going to go. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/u...v=top-news&_r=0
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
From what I understand worldwide helium reserves are pretty low, since it's not something that naturally occurs on Earth much.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Based on what I'm reading her case kept losing after being remanded to a lower court
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that it's not at all a good thing that they are even taking this up. Clearly they want another crack at the ACA.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
People forget that Kennedy was against the ACA. He Scalia, Alito, and Thomas could have granted Cert.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
I'm wondering if the government argument that there is no fallback plan if the challenge wins will have any influence here. 8 or so million people will lose their health insurance, which will also destabilize the insurance market as a whole and cause significant economic damage. Of course knowing this court they will just say 'oh, Congress can just fix it' and do it anyway a la the VRA decision. This with them knowing full well that Congress will not fix it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Yes, because they probably believe they have a better defense on the merits (which is true).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
The court agreed to take up a case on sentencing juveniles to life without parole today. I think on Friday here in FL our state Supreme Court ruled that a juvenile should not be subject to that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Does anyone know what this DirectTV case is about?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
The court denied cert in another voter ID case.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
This was the North Carolina case.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
The Court has agreed to consider a challenge to the '1 person, one vote' rule from 1964 that involves how states draw districts. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would greatly help the GOP, since anyone ineligible to vote would no longer be counted when determining districts. So felons, immigrants, children, etc could be excluded.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
They managed to sidestep the 1st Amendment issues raised there because of that
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Elonis v. United States: to be successfully convicted under federal law for communicating a threat to injure another person via interstate commerce (e.g., the internet), the jury must find - beyond a reasonable doubt - not only that the communication was a threat (nobody disputes this), but also that the defendant at least "should have known" that the communication would be viewed as a threat by a reasonable person (a recklessness standard). In so holding, the Court rejects the government's position that it would be sufficient to instead simply show that a hypothetical reasonable person would have known that that the communication would be viewed as a threat (a negligence standard), which would not look to the defendant's state of mental culpability.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
That may be the last decision they issue, even before Obergfell.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
They decided not to answer whether or not that kind of speech is protected.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
I'm pessimistic that they will find a way. Remember that few people thought this case would actually be granted cert.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When the South wins Civil War 2 then they will get the power to define themselves not-traitors-but-patriots just like we did, sorry losers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
McConnell and his people have been planning to hold the subsidies hostage for some time now. The last thing I heard was him arguing for a temporary extension of the current subsidies (but not a permanent fix) in exchange for something the GOP really wants, like killing Net Neutrality or Obama authorizing the Keystone Pipeline immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
If they rule in favor of King, not only will that cause the destruction of the insurance market, but it could open up many new suits potentially since they would have to agree that those four words outweigh everything else that contradicts them in the entire text of the law.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
this_is_hard posted:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2015 15:47
|
|
