The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Other tea leaf available is that Kagan and Scalia are the only two left without a majority opinion for the March sitting, and there are two cases left. Presuming Kagan gets the more boring patent case as the least senior judge, that would mean Scalia is likely writing the clean air act decision. Probably not a good sign for the EPA in that one.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

http://www.startribune.com/judge-ex...g-minnesota-s-sex-offender-program/307884871/

Here's another case to keep an eye on moving forward.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Personally I hope they destroy Obamacare and strike down gay marriage. I want people to actually see and feel the consequences of their votes and I think that may actually finally do it.

Same-sex marriage is safe, don't worry.

A ruling that PPACA actually means what is written in plain text won't "destroy" Obamacare, Congress will pass a temporary patch to protect R-state governors from political pressure, and the patch will expire after the 2017 inauguration, so that keeping the best parts of Obamacare while eliminating the worst parts can become part of the Presidential campaign.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Can I also say that I love the fact that the vast majority of opinions I have read include both a double space after sentences and the Oxford comma?


Edit: Although I don't appreciate how they treat the names of chemical compounds. Better than most, still not quite right...

Edit 2: I also love that Thomas, in McFadden, cited Websters NID 2nd edition 1954.

Edit 3: Roberts' pop quiz was a nice touch

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

This case involves "bath salts" - he could still get convicted, the court basically said they used a bad jury instruction.

I don't know about your former scenario. I suppose it depends if he believes it was oregano or not. I would think he might face fraud charges in the alternative, though, so either way he'd be seeing time behind bars.

Ok, here's the heart of it. THe court established the bar but set it fairly low so that you can't just claim ignorance:

That knowledge requirement may be met by showing that the defendant knew he possessed a substance listed on the schedules, even if he did not know which substance it was. Take, for example, a defendant whose role in a larger drug organization is to distribute a white powder to customers. The defendant may know that the white powder is listed on the schedules even if he does not know precisely what substance it is. And if so, he would be guilty of knowingly distributing “a controlled substance.”
The knowledge requirement may also be met by showing that the defendant knew the identity of the substance he possessed. Take, for example, a defendant who knows he is distributing heroin but does not know that heroin is listed on the schedules, 21 CFR §1308.11 (2014). Because ignorance of the law is typically no defense to criminal prosecution, Bryan v. United States, 524 U. S. 184, 196 (1998), this defendant would also be guilty of knowingly distributing “a controlled substance.”***


***1The Courts of Appeals have held that, as with most mens rea requirements, the Government can prove the requisite mental state through either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence could include, for example, past arrests that put a defendant on notice of the controlled status of a substance. United States v. Abdulle, 564 F. 3d 119, 127 (CA2 2009). Circumstantial evidence could include, for example, a defendant’s concealment of his activities, evasive behavior with respect to law enforcement, knowledge that a particular substance produces a “high” similar to that produced by controlled substances, and knowledge that a particular substance is subject to seizure at customs. United States v. Ali, 735 F. 3d 176, 188– 189 (CA4 2013). The Government presented such circumstantial evidence in this case, and neither party disputes that this was proper.

 

[unofan]

Same-sex marriage is safe, don't worry.

A ruling that PPACA actually means what is written in plain text won't "destroy" Obamacare, Congress will pass a temporary patch to protect R-state governors from political pressure, and the patch will expire after the 2017 inauguration, so that keeping the best parts of Obamacare while eliminating the worst parts can become part of the Presidential campaign.

The normal rules of statutory interpretation supports the government, not the challengers, because they require reading the law as a whole and in context and not simply reading words in isolation. In order to find against the government, the conservative wing will have to contort themselves a whole lot by explaining how such rules don't apply in this situation. It will be interesting to see how they do so, whether in a majority opinion or in a dissent.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

The normal rules of statutory interpretation supports the government, not the challengers, because they require reading the law as a whole and in context and not simply reading words in isolation. In order to find against the government, the conservative wing will have to contort themselves a whole lot by explaining how such rules don't apply in this situation. It will be interesting to see how they do so, whether in a majority opinion or in a dissent.

Sent a rep and forgot to ID.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

5-4, liberals + Thomas. License plates constitute government speech and thus they do not have to issue confederate plates if the government does not want to send out that message.

Shocker that this was 5-4. Just because one can say what they want under the appropriate circumstances (i.e., free speech) doesn't mean that the state is forced to put it on its plates. The Alito statement was ridiculous. And how can Roberts, who appears to pride himself on purity of the law, go for this?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Shocker that this was 5-4. Just because one can say what they want under the appropriate circumstances (i.e., free speech) doesn't mean that the state is forced to put it on its plates. The Alito statement was ridiculous. And how can Roberts, who appears to pride himself on purity of the law, go for this?

It seems weird to me that this vote was cast as a "free speech" case to begin with. If one agrees that a state government can refuse to issue vanity license plates with obscene words, or that it can refuse to issue vanity license plates that contain hate speech (who would support issuance of a vanity plate that said "Kill ***"??), then how can one then turn around and say that, beyond vanity plates, the state should be forced to issue a special commemorative license plate because a few people want it?

If the vote went the other way, would the next case be about the design of drivers' license?

Thomas' vote seemed to be about principle and consistency of thought, not some knee-jerk reactive "left wing or right wing" response.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

The normal rules of statutory interpretation supports the government, not the challengers, because they require reading the law as a whole and in context and not simply reading words in isolation.

So in this one case, "legislative intent" doesn't matter??

The evidence is pretty clear that the drafters of the law clearly intended for subsidies to be available only to state-run exchanges, because they figured that such a limitation would force reluctant states to set up their own exchanges so that their citizens would not be left out.

The Medicaid expansion provisions were struck down 7 - 2 on very similar grounds. If SCOTUS is going to be consistent, King v Burwell should be decided in a similar manner, no? Undue federal government coercion or whatever the phrase was, I don't have the text handy right now.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Shocker that this was 5-4. Just because one can say what they want under the appropriate circumstances (i.e., free speech) doesn't mean that the state is forced to put it on its plates. The Alito statement was ridiculous. And how can Roberts, who appears to pride himself on purity of the law, go for this?

It would be interesting if an identical case had come to the Court but the design had been submitted by, say, Planned Parenthood.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

So in this one case, "legislative intent" doesn't matter??

The evidence is pretty clear that the drafters of the law clearly intended for subsidies to be available only to state-run exchanges, because they figured that such a limitation would force reluctant states to set up their own exchanges so that their citizens would not be left out.

The Medicaid expansion provisions were struck down 7 - 2 on very similar grounds. If SCOTUS is going to be consistent, King v Burwell should be decided in a similar manner, no? Undue federal government coercion or whatever the phrase was, I don't have the text handy right now.

You realize that in order to avoid that undue federal coercion, they'd have to uphold the ACA's subsidies, right? Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

You realize that in order to avoid that undue federal coercion, they'd have to uphold the ACA's subsidies, right? Thanks for agreeing with me.

Great, now Fishy's head just exploded! Who's going to clean up the mess?

I've heard it speculated that this scenario is Roberts' "out" on this ruling. He says "yeah, the law is how the plantiffs view it, but that's unconstitutionally coercive so subsidies have to go to everybody". That would be pretty funny actually.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

You realize that in order to avoid that undue federal coercion, they'd [either] have to uphold the ACA's subsidies [or overturn them entirely], right?

that's true, Roberts' ruling in NFIB v Sebelius merely said that the mandate was an unconstitutional expansion of federal government under the commerce clause before it was recast as a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing power instead, it did not touch upon the subsidies at all. Good point.

I'm a bit surprised frankly that no one has challenged PPACA under 10th Amendment grounds. Insurance regulation has always been delegated solely to the states.

I'm a bit rusty, isn't the dividing line something like "the feds can only regulate behavior not people, while the states can regulate people"? or some such distinction? Isn't that why states can require people to get liability insurance before issuing drivers' licenses, but the feds cannot issue a national driver's license, even though people drive cars across state lines?

 

[unofan]

that's true, Roberts' ruling in NFIB v Sebelius merely said that the mandate was an unconstitutional expansion of federal government under the commerce clause before it was recast as a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing power instead, it did not touch upon the subsidies at all. Good point.

I'm a bit surprised frankly that no one has challenged PPACA under 10th Amendment grounds. Insurance regulation has always been delegated solely to the states.

I'm a bit rusty, isn't the dividing line something like "the feds can only regulate behavior not people, while the states can regulate people"? or some such distinction? Isn't that why states can require people to get liability insurance before issuing drivers' licenses, but the feds cannot issue a national driver's license, even though people drive cars across state lines?

Subsidies for the state run exchanges aren't being challenged, so no on that front. And you're forgetting those small programs called Medicare and Medicaid

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Subsidies for the state run exchanges aren't being challenged, so no on that front. And you're forgetting those small programs called Medicare and Medicaid

I suppose one solution would just be to expand Medicare to absorb Obamacare and Medicaid into a single, universal coverage entity.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I suppose one solution would just be to expand Medicare to absorb Obamacare and Medicaid into a single, universal coverage entity.

You just blew the Bone Man and Itch's mind.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It seems weird to me that this vote was cast as a "free speech" case to begin with....

Yeah. I can't help but think that based on the Texas plates case here, pretty much the consensus on this thread appears to be much more aligned with the First as embodied in the Constitution than is the whole of the SCOTUS. And this isn't really rocket science.

 

[unofan]

The evidence is pretty clear that the drafters of the law clearly intended for subsidies to be available only to state-run exchanges

Not sure how I missed this nugget, because it's such an absurd fabrication that it can't even be classified as spin. No one believes the legislature actually intended that. The plaintiffs are arguing it because they have to to win, but anyone but the most partisan of hacks recognize it as an absurd position to take.

By the way, opinions come out in about 40 minutes. SCOTUS Blog is already live this morning.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Not sure how I missed this nugget, because it's such an absurd fabrication that it can't even be classified as spin. No one believes the legislature actually intended that.

I missed it by the wonders of Ignore, but yeah, that one's a whopper, even considering the source. But considering the source you know that means it's being somberly intoned from every Echo Chamber pulpit.

The hilarious part is, the record of all the discussions leading up to the bill directly refutes his contention, which means the conservative justices who are always shooting down reproductive rights by looking at the "intention of the legislators as drawn from the debate record" should reject it out of hand. Yet they forgot all about that "deep, principled view" in this case. Wonder why that could be?