The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

A three-judge panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies 2008 SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (that the amendment means it when it says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") to State of Illinois. In Moore v. Madigan, the judges gave the Legislature in Springfield 180 days "to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment . . ., on the carrying of guns in public."


Text cut and pasted together from Taranto's column in today's Wall St Journal. Original citations omitted.

[unofan]

A three-judge panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies 2008 SCOTUS ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (that the amendment means it when it says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") to State of Illinois. In Moore v. Madigan, the judges gave the Legislature in Springfield 180 days "to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment . . ., on the carrying of guns in public."


Text cut and pasted together from Taranto's column in today's Wall St Journal. Original citations omitted.

And yet somehow people believe the President will take away your guns. Never mind that Kagan goes hunting with Scalia and 2nd amendment jurisprudence is basically as settled as it can be...

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

And yet somehow people believe the President will take away your guns. Never mind that Kagan goes hunting with Scalia and 2nd amendment jurisprudence is basically as settled as it can be...

The New World Order wants to ban guns. Obviously many in the country will fight the NWO, but eventually, the USA will be sucked in if we keep getting these Marxist leaders...

[unofan]

The New World Order wants to ban guns. Obviously many in the country will fight the NWO, but eventually, the USA will be sucked in if we keep getting these Marxist leaders...

You know...your libertarian rants are at least somewhat sane. Everytime you start this nwo shiat, you really give yourself away as a troll. Or a crazy person, which might as well be the same thing.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

SCOTUS agrees to hear the gay marriage cases, including California

Possible outcomes?
(1) SCOTUS declares Feds have no business deciding what is or is not a legal marriage -- it's a state issue (contradicts Loving??)
(1a) Upholds California vote on Prop 8. State determined what is / is not a legal marriage. 'nuf ced. Still have a hodge - podge of marriage rules, but we've had that for decades anyway.
(2) SCOTUS upholds DOMA
(2a) Creates chaos among the states. Feds say XY, states say XX, YY and XY. Lots of tax issues.
(3) SCOTUS upholds DOMA, upholds California, and tells the rest of the country that the Feds have a vested interest in who can marry and tosses all gay marriage rules.
(3a) Ultra conservative hail ruling. Liberals decry an activist court (how ironic!) Libertarians wonder if they can secede.

Scalia will vote on XY. It's ingrained in his (and many other American's) psyche. He (and many) cannot conceive of (to him/them) a law promoting immorality. He may be right. However, I'm betting on (1).

Link: http://www.wtop.com/289/2930109/Supr...marriage-cases

And of course, none of these outcomes will be correct. Marriage isn't a feds issue or a state issue. It's a church issue, and it really shouldn't matter to the government (state or federal) except somewhere along the line we decided to tie taxation, inheritance and employment benefits to this religious issue.

[unofan]

And of course, none of these outcomes will be correct. Marriage isn't a feds issue or a state issue. It's a church issue, and it really shouldn't matter to the government (state or federal) except somewhere along the line we decided to tie taxation, inheritance and employment benefits to this religious issue.

At least for inheritance purposes, that line was crossed a few thousand years ago. That was one of the first reasons to get married.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

And of course, none of these outcomes will be correct. Marriage isn't a feds issue or a state issue. It's a church issue, and it really shouldn't matter to the government (state or federal) except somewhere along the line we decided to tie taxation, inheritance and employment benefits to this religious issue.

Amazing how the media is already trying to ramp up the pressure on the Court to rule the way they want it to. I'm sure Obama will put the pressure on again also.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

While it hasn't reached SCOTUS yet, and perhaps never will, I've been following the case of Argentina vs Paul Singer's hedge fund, Elliott Management Corporation. Argentina issued some bonds coming due in 2017 and found itself unable to meet its annual interest payments. It negotiated a deal with most of its bondholders where they agreed to accept something like 35 cents on the dollar. Singer wants 100 cents on the dollar. He had a preliminary ruling in his favor, but that was overturned by an appeals court. It seems to me that all bondholders should be treated the same. Singer's demand to be paid more than everyone else has caused all payments to everyone to be suspended until it is resolved, which naturally leaves all the other bondholders really annoyed.

The case raises a variety of issues, one of which is jurisdictional (why is this in US courts to begin with? can US courts compel a sovereign nation to follow a certain course of action?). I have no sympathy for Singer nor for Argentina, whatever "sympathy" I might have is limited solely to whatever retirement plans or charitable endowments that own Argentina's bonds.

Saw that case recently. Very interesting. If Singer actually won out, it would seem to have widespread ramifications. Somehow it does seem very problematic for a U.S. court to extend it's jurisdiction in such a way.

[unofan]

Amazing how the media is already trying to ramp up the pressure on the Court to rule the way they want it to. I'm sure Obama will put the pressure on again also.

You came back just to post a rant about the 'liberal' media? Wow.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I bet unofan is making some snarky comment to me. Thankfully I don't see those anymore. Thank you USCHO for the ignore feature. Impressive though that he responded so quickly.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

At least for inheritance purposes, that line was crossed a few thousand years ago. That was one of the first reasons to get married.

Yes and no. Depending upon where you happened to be, or the system you were living under, a widowed woman may find the estate passing to her husband's eldest child or even back to his family. But again, in many instances it was still tied to the religious strictures of that locale.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Saw that case recently. Very interesting. If Singer actually won out, it would seem to have widespread ramifications. Somehow it does seem very problematic for a U.S. court to extend it's jurisdiction in such a way.

I cannot imagine how the courts could possibly let Singer win out. that would be a disastrous outcome. it would make it impossible for any debtor ever to restructure their debt. Restructuring is always better than outright default for all parties in the long run.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I bet unofan is making some snarky comment to me. Thankfully I don't see those anymore. Thank you USCHO for the ignore feature. Impressive though that he responded so quickly.

I also have him on ignore. Of course, I'll once in a while poke in at what's being said, and if I think it's warranted of having a good conversation, I'll respond to it. If it's just an obvious troll or troll accusation, at first no response is warranted unless I can think of something really funny, but once they're on ignore, forget it. Same with Rover, Scooby, and Gurth.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Marriage needs to be defined federally....

Disagree. Roberts made it very clear when he found the PPACA mandate to be unconstitutional, that only states have the power to regulate people. IIRC he said explicitly that the federal government does not have the power to regulate people. If he is going to be consistent, then only the states can define marriage.

If DOMA is found to be unconstitutional on the federal level, then in states that allow same-sex marriage, there would be a spousal deduction for the estate tax for a surviving same-sex spouse. What happens though if they then move to another state that does not allow same-sex marriage? Do they get a spousal deduction for federal estate tax but not for state estate tax?

If I were to bet on the outcome, I'd say that the SCOTUS rebukes the federal court that overturned the CA referendum and allows the CA referendum to stand while also finding DOMA an over-reach of federal powers. The first by 5-4 vote and the latter by 7-2 vote. Both decided as limitations of federal power / affirmation of state power.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Disagree. Roberts made it very clear when he found the PPACA mandate to be unconstitutional, that only states have the power to regulate people. IIRC he said explicitly that the federal government does not have the power to regulate people. If he is going to be consistent, then only the states can define marriage.

If DOMA is found to be unconstitutional on the federal level, then in states that allow same-sex marriage, there would be a spousal deduction for the estate tax for a surviving same-sex spouse. What happens though if they then move to another state that does not allow same-sex marriage? Do they get a spousal deduction for federal estate tax but not for state estate tax?

If I were to bet on the outcome, I'd say that the SCOTUS rebukes the federal court that overturned the CA referendum and allows the CA referendum to stand while also finding DOMA an over-reach of federal powers. The first by 5-4 vote and the latter by 7-2 vote. Both decided as limitations of federal power / affirmation of state power.

Then you need to take marriage provisions out of any and all federally provided or mandated things. As a simple example, let's look at the 1040 return. You are able to file as "Married Filing Jointly" or "Married Filing Separately", and have various rules relative to that. Therefore, you need to define what constitutes a "marriage" in order for people to be able to lawfully file as "married". If you want to please everyone, then you pretty much have to remove all of these provisions, have everyone file as single and declare dependents as need be, and set up declarations of "next of kin" where people talk about estate transfer and visitation privileges.