The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Banning corporations but not unions? No thanks. Both or neither. Government should not be picking sides.

Then substitute language that says "artificial persons such as collective entities" or somesuch. You're missing the point of the amendment.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So here's the People's Rights Amendment:



Very interested to hear thoughts on this.

Banning corporations but not unions? No thanks. Both or neither. Government should not be picking sides.

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

So here's the People's Rights Amendment:

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

Very interested to hear thoughts on this.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

are you being obtuse, or deliberately rude?

I'm joking. You see those smiley faces? They mean "joking." I actually didn't think they were necessary, but apparently they weren't even sufficient...

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

How "unfairly"?

are you being obtuse, or deliberately rude.?


EDIT:
oops, to quote Emily Litella (again...sigh) "never mind."

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I think you meant "and" instead of "but". Otherwise you would be insulting another's integrity unfairly.

How "unfairly"?

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Yeah, but when I use I'm being sincere.

I think you meant "and" instead of "but". Otherwise you would be insulting another's integrity unfairly.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

"Interesting" that you used the word "interesting," eh?

Yeah, but when I use I'm being sincere.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

That is interesting.

"Interesting" that you used the word "interesting," eh?

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

In an unrelated matter, SCOTUS also issued a technical ruling on an IRS matter that went 5 - 4 with Kennedy in the minority. That doesn't happen often.

That is interesting. There must be some sort of "clustering" metric on which justices tend to group together.

I wouldn't be surprised if the correlations are pretty low, though. The "liberal"/"conservative" distinction holds on high profile politicized cases, but the Court still seems to do lots of technical work where the voting is all over the place.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

It sounds like I may not have been the only one with a "huh? what?" reaction....

From WSJ:

Several justices said they couldn't understand the legal distinction between allowing ad-hoc checking of a person's immigration status and codifying that into a general policy, since federal law already requires the federal government to answer questions from state officials about a person's status.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the section merely required state officers to notify the federal government that they had picked up an illegal immigrant and it was entirely up to the federal government to decide whether to take action against that person. Chief Justice Roberts said he couldn't understand how that interfered with federal discretion over immigration enforcement.

The question before the court was whether the Arizona law interfered with federal law, which both sides agree enjoys primacy in questions of immigration.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the Obama administration, said the status-checking provision worked with the Arizona law's other provisions to undermine federal immigration policy as legislated by Congress.

But no member of the court—even those on the liberal wing—expressed clear agreement with Mr. Verrilli's stance on that point. "You can see it's not selling very well," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said she was confused by Mr. Verrilli's answer as to why a statewide rule on checking status was worse than an ad-hoc policy.

Some aspects of the law did come under further scrutiny:

Chief Justice Roberts said he was troubled by the provision criminalizing job seeking because he said it went further than federal law in punishing illegal immigrants. Justice Sotomayor also expressed concerns about that part of the law, saying Congress rejected the idea of punishing illegal immigrants who seek work.

which could lead to a nuanced ruling:

Each of the four provisions struck down by lower courts involves a separate legal analysis, meaning that the Supreme Court could uphold some but not others. Justice Elena Kagan, who was solicitor general when the Obama administration filed its challenge to the Arizona law, recused herself.

In an unrelated matter, SCOTUS also issued a technical ruling on an IRS matter that went 5 - 4 with Kennedy in the minority. That doesn't happen often.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

This is one of those cases that leaves me going "huh? what?"

If the AZ law is presented correctly in various news articles I've read, it merely instructs state officials to enforce federal law. The Administration didn't bother to change the federal law when they had filibuster-proof majorities and now they don't want the federal law enforced?

One of the ironies is that the predecessor governor, Democrat Napolitano, is now Director of Homeland Security and while governor she declared a state of emergency in AZ over the very same issue.

Yah, a lot of us in Arizona have been going "huh, what?" at the federal government on this subject for years. Should be interesting to see how the Supremes go on this. It's really a much bigger case than just AZ's immigration law, but rather one of those cases that will help define what, if anything, a state can do to address public safety needs.

Napolitano's flip-flopping on immigration issues makes Romney look like a pillar of consistency.

Not enforcing the border laws will help get Obama re-elected, which is what it's all about. No surprise there.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

SB 1070 oral arguments today.

This is one of those cases that leaves me going "huh? what?"

If the AZ law is presented correctly in various news articles I've read, it merely instructs state officials to enforce federal law. The Administration didn't bother to change the federal law when they had filibuster-proof majorities and now they don't want the federal law enforced?

One of the ironies is that the predecessor governor, Democrat Napolitano, is now Director of Homeland Security and while governor she declared a state of emergency in AZ over the very same issue.

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

SB 1070 oral arguments today.

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Too bad he missed the opportunity to invoke the Sunny Bono Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act...I think we're about due for Disney's next major bribery, err, campaign contributions to assure another extension so Steamboat Willie doesn't fall into the Public Domain.

Is that a Clinton reference??