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

[Bob Gray]

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

Don't kid yourself. The feds can't do anything right!

My statement was tongue-in-cheek. You should know me well enough to know I wouldn't be likely to praise the feds for being smart and efficient and all.

 

[FreshFish]

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

That would be interesting, but what would be the "additional information"?

It stems from a Scalia quote during oral arguments, about the challenge of going through a 2,700 page law without a severability clause.

It might also involve behind-the-scenes positioning. Note that there have been a string of 9-0 rulings this year limiting federal government power, and now the 8-0 ruling on the AZ case as well (the other three AZ parts tossed also involved the "proper balance" between federal and state powers).

The guessing is that Roberts wants 6-3 or 7-2 ruling that says the mandate exceeds the powers granted under the commerce clause and wants to find some way to make that palatable to the one or two votes he needs to pick up. One way is to find a path that can preserve other parts of the law, except how can the SCOTUS be expected to pick and choose which ones? Hence the theory they will give only a top-level stay, toss the mandate, and hold further hearings on the severability issue.


Regarding the AZ case, the 8-0 ruling is seen by many as a rebuke to Obama for not enforcing the laws that Congress wrote....does the Executive get to choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore?

 

[Priceless]

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

My statement was tongue-in-cheek. You should know me well enough to know I wouldn't be likely to praise the feds for being smart and efficient and all.

Whereas mine was completely serious. As is this one.

 

[Priceless]

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

The Daily Show sums up the winners and losers in the ruling...

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-25-2012/arizona-winners---losers'>Arizona Winners & Losers</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:415837' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Regarding the AZ case, the 8-0 ruling is seen by many as a rebuke to Obama for not enforcing the laws that Congress wrote....does the Executive get to choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore?

I would say that he gets to set the priorities and Congress does not provide him enough money to enforce the laws as written so that's his only choice. We have a huge enforcement problem in this country when it comes to Federal Law or Regulation. We don't have the funding. We either need to simplify, or we need to accept that each President is going to run the enforcement priorities as he sees fit.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Whereas mine was completely serious. As is this one.

Yes, I know you to be a serious, deeply thoughtful person at all times.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

I would say that he gets to set the priorities and Congress does not provide him enough money to enforce the laws as written so that's his only choice. We have a huge enforcement problem in this country when it comes to Federal Law or Regulation. We don't have the funding. We either need to simplify, or we need to accept that each President is going to run the enforcement priorities as he sees fit.

Yup, there's just no money in the federal budget to control the border. One of the oldest and hollowest excuses around. You can certainly find better ones if you try.

 

[Priceless]

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

Yes, I know you to be a serious, deeply thoughtful person at all times.

Likewise.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Yup, there's just no money in the federal budget to control the border. One of the oldest and hollowest excuses around. You can certainly find better ones if you try.

*sigh*

Thanks again for bypassing context altogether and going straight to your Fox News agenda. I'm sure Romney will fix it for you when he gets elected. He's Mr. Fix It after all.

 

[Priceless]

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

*sigh*

Thanks again for bypassing context altogether and going straight to your Fox News agenda. I'm sure Romney will fix it for you when he gets elected. He's Mr. Fix It after all.

I'm sure he'll find plenty of cheap labor who like working back-breaking hours in the hot, desert sun to build his fence...

 

[LynahFan]

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

I would say that he gets to set the priorities and Congress does not provide him enough money to enforce the laws as written so that's his only choice. We have a huge enforcement problem in this country when it comes to Federal Law or Regulation. We don't have the funding. We either need to simplify, or we need to accept that each President is going to run the enforcement priorities as he sees fit.

Gee, maybe if we don't have the money to enforce, we should pass fewer laws in the first place. But no. Every burning issue must immediately become a federal case that needs massive new laws, bureaucracy, and oversight of the bureaucracy, so that the politicians can tell their constituents that they've accomplished something grand.

Just a lovely, lovely system.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Gee, maybe if we don't have the money to enforce, we should pass fewer laws in the first place. But no. Every burning issue must immediately become a federal case that needs massive new laws, bureaucracy, and oversight of the bureaucracy, so that the politicians can tell their constituents that they've accomplished something grand.

Just a lovely, lovely system.

I couldn't agree more. I was just observing the obvious.

 

[Kepler]

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

Gee, maybe if we don't have the money to enforce, we should pass fewer laws in the first place. But no. Every burning issue must immediately become a federal case that needs massive new laws, bureaucracy, and oversight of the bureaucracy, so that the politicians can tell their constituents that they've accomplished something grand.

Just a lovely, lovely system.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."

 

[Rover]

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

I'm going to tred lightly here as I don't want to make fun of the object of a USCHO poster's desire, but I was pretty amused by Old Sea Hag Brewer saying this was a win for Arizona. Let me get this straight. Every major portion of the law was struck down. The only part left standing was the one where cops can ask people arrested or detained if they're here legally, but only if they have reasons to suspect otherwise AND they're not racially profiling. Isn't that the same as bragging because a court upheld a law saying that cops have the right to ask "hey whaddaya doin' here buddy" if they find you wandering along the side of the Interstate at 3 AM with an empty bottle of Jack in your hand? I mean, really, Bob Gray, I know your affection for Gov. Leatherface but even you must have cringed at that one.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Yup, there's just no money in the federal budget to control the border. One of the oldest and hollowest excuses around. You can certainly find better ones if you try.

Pew, one of the most learned institutes on immigration (http://pewresearch.org/topics/immigration/)...has a different opinion:

Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less
Pew Research by Jeffrey Passel, D’Vera Cohn and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. Among the report’s other main findings from these sections:

Changing Patterns of Border Enforcement

•In spite of (and perhaps because of) increases in the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents, apprehensions of Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally have plummeted in recent years—from more than 1 million in 2005 to 286,000 in 2011—a likely indication that fewer unauthorized migrants are trying to cross. Border Patrol apprehensions of all unauthorized immigrants are now at their lowest level since 1971.

•As apprehensions at the border have declined, deportations of unauthorized Mexican immigrants–some of them picked up at work sites or after being arrested for other criminal violations–have risen to record levels. In 2010, 282,000 unauthorized Mexican immigrants were repatriated by U.S. authorities, via deportation or the expedited removal process.

...

The net message continues to be that there was lax border security during the last decade and beyond (when the right was upset with French surrender monkeys)...and border security is now quite good (and now that the right is upset with border security). But that's nobody on these boards.

 

[Kepler]

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

The net message continues to be that there was lax border security during the last decade and beyond (when the right was upset with French surrender monkeys)...and border security is now quite good (and now that the right is upset with border security).

To be fair, the net message seems to be that our economy so turned to crap during Bush's second term that even the Mexicans have found better places to be.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

*sigh*

Thanks again for bypassing context altogether and going straight to your Fox News agenda. I'm sure Romney will fix it for you when he gets elected. He's Mr. Fix It after all.

You'd take this issue a good deal more seriously if you lived near the border and saw the deleterious impacts of lax federal policing of the border. But, given that you don't, I can understand why you keep your head in the sand.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

I'm going to tred lightly here as I don't want to make fun of the object of a USCHO poster's desire, but I was pretty amused by Old Sea Hag Brewer saying this was a win for Arizona. Let me get this straight. Every major portion of the law was struck down. The only part left standing was the one where cops can ask people arrested or detained if they're here legally, but only if they have reasons to suspect otherwise AND they're not racially profiling. Isn't that the same as bragging because a court upheld a law saying that cops have the right to ask "hey whaddaya doin' here buddy" if they find you wandering along the side of the Interstate at 3 AM with an empty bottle of Jack in your hand? I mean, really, Bob Gray, I know your affection for Gov. Leatherface but even you must have cringed at that one.

I said before that my initial take on this was a big win for Obama and big federal government. Pay attention before you troll please.

 

[Kepler]

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

You'd take this issue a good deal more seriously if you lived near the border and saw the deleterious impacts of lax federal policing of the border. But, given that you don't, I can understand why you keep your head in the sand.

Does this logic also apply to men butting out of women's reproductive health issues?

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Likewise.

Another issue we agree on. This is becoming a contagion!