The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[Bob Gray]

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

I think the point is that an absolutist view of any given amendment is contrary to the judicial philosophy that governs everything else in the country. Every right has limits, but the Second Amendment is treated as untouchable because a powerful lobby is making millions of dollars off it and aggressively opposes any limitation. That's a distortion, driven by greed.

Just saying that saying government passes laws for the general welfare of the people is a highly debatable statement.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Just saying that saying government passes laws for the general welfare of the people is a highly debatable statement.

Not really, considering it's in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

 

[FreshFish]

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

The only other object that kills people on the same scale as guns are cars- and they ARE regulated a LOT for safety. Far more than guns will ever be. Heck, the insurance industry has done a number on vehicles and the number of airbags in them.

If people started dying due to drain cleaner on that scale, I'm sure there would be regulations about that. Government does pass laws for the general wefare of the people, afterall.

I cannot remember the exact distinction right now, but there is a crucial difference between what the federal government can regulate and what states can regulate. Something like, "the feds can only regulate behaviors that cross state lines, while the states can regulate people who live within the state's boundaries."

So that states can require driver's license ond proof of liability insurance coverage before people can legally drive a car, but the feds cannot require a national driver's license.

Many people do not remember that PPACA actually was struck down as unconstitutional under the interstate commerce clause, since only the states can regulate health insurance sold within their borders, and only subsequently was PPACA then reinstated as a legitimate exercise of Congress' power to tax. It was a really weird 1 - 4 - 4 decision, the four votes to sustain Roberts were more like a dissent than a concurrence.

 

[FreshFish]

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

Another thing that most people forget is that the Medicaid expansion section of PPACA was overturned on a 7 - 2 vote.

 

[FreshFish]

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

My take on the President's recent scolding of SCOTUS over PPACA is that he has already received advance notice that the plaintiffs in King v Burwell have the votes to win, and he is laying the groundwork for his upcoming political ranting against SCOTUS and those evil dastardly Republicans who are far more evil than ISIS. I mean, ISIS merely beheads people, while those Republicans don't like him very much, which is a far more serious offense.

 

[St. Clown]

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

My take on the President's recent scolding of SCOTUS over PPACA is that he has already received advance notice that the plaintiffs in King v Burwell have the votes to win, and he is laying the groundwork for his upcoming political ranting against SCOTUS and those evil dastardly Republicans who are far more evil than ISIS.

It's the makings of a movie sequel, A Stitch in Time Saves 9 Part II: This Means War.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Not really, considering it's in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

And something being in the Constitution guarantees what, long term?

I was talking about the practical reality, but hey, argue something I'm not saying if you want.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

And something being in the Constitution guarantees what, long term?

I was talking about the practical reality, but hey, argue something I'm not saying if you want.

Given the recent SCOTUS decision on guns, jack squat.

Every single law is "for our benefit", but I will certainly give you that the execution thereof is not necessarily true.

 

[Kepler]

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

Just saying that saying government passes laws for the general welfare of the people is a highly debatable statement.

Aint my Congress, sonny.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Aint my Congress, sonny.

But it has been in much of the past.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Given the recent SCOTUS decision on guns, jack squat.

Every single law is "for our benefit", but I will certainly give you that the execution thereof is not necessarily true.

I get you must be arguing some angle on the wording "for our benefit" to make a statement such as that, but apart from some word parsing, it's just plain not true.

 

[unofan]

My take on the President's recent scolding of SCOTUS over PPACA is that he has already received advance notice that the plaintiffs in King v Burwell have the votes to win, and he is laying the groundwork for his upcoming political ranting against SCOTUS and those evil dastardly Republicans who are far more evil than ISIS. I mean, ISIS merely beheads people, while those Republicans don't like him very much, which is a far more serious offense.

Someone needs to either get more tin foil from flaggy or lay off the pipe. Not sure which.

I can guarantee the President doesn't have anything official or otherwise from the court. He found out about the last health care decision from scotusblog (after fox news and cnn screwed the pooch and initially reported it was struck down).

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

I get you must be arguing some angle on the wording "for our benefit" to make a statement such as that, but apart from some word parsing, it's just plain not true.

After listening to loonies that make Rover and Scooby look like moderates, their interpretation of the use of the word "welfare" in the first clause of Article I Section 8 is, shall we say, "broad". They use it as the defence of SNAP, PPACA, Medicaid, and pretty much every single government assistance program in existence.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Someone needs to either get more tin foil from flaggy or lay off the pipe. Not sure which.

I can guarantee the President doesn't have anything official or otherwise from the court. He found out about the last health care decision from scotusblog (after fox news and cnn screwed the pooch and initially reported it was struck down).

If you really want tin foil hat responses, some claim that Obama had some of his appointed "advisors" (advisors had to do it for plausible deniability) get some blackmail on Roberts and threaten to expose him with it if he didn't uphold PPACA. Having the official word as you said is most certainly true, but Fishy may be referring to "straw polls" and associated influences.

 

[joecct]

I think the point is that an absolutist view of any given amendment is contrary to the judicial philosophy that governs everything else in the country. Every right has limits, but the Second Amendment is treated as untouchable because a powerful lobby is making millions of dollars off it and aggressively opposes any limitation. That's a distortion, driven by greed.

Could you say the same about the 14th?

 

[Kepler]

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

Could you say the same about the 14th?

On whether it's limited, that's a good philosophical question. On whether a lobbying group is making a killing on it, I could be out of the loop but I know of none.

 

[unofan]

Could you say the same about the 14th?

Considering there's an entire field of scholarship devoted to the 14th, of course it has its limitations.

They just aren't what you want them to be.

 

[Kepler]

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

If I'm reading Scotusblog correctly there have been no decisions handed down since Monday. Is that indicative of an important decision coming next or does it mean nothing?

Actually, how far in advance are the decisions written from when they are announced? I suppose they have to be printed? Are the justices (well, their clerks) up all night drafting, or have the decisions actually been finished days in advance? Who decides what order in which the cases are decided and announced, the CJ?

Edit: I guess the slip opinion, which is the original announcement, does not have to wait to be printed. From Wikipedia:

An opinion may be released in several stages of completeness. First, a bench opinion may be handed down, with the judge or panel of judges indicating their decision and a rough explanation of the reasoning underlying it. A slip opinion may also be issued the day the decision is handed down, and is usually not typeset or fully formatted. It is not the final or most authoritative version, being subject to further revision before being replaced with a final published edition. The Supreme Court of the United States issues slip opinions with the following disclaimer:

The "slip" opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the "bench" opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion—majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus—but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion.

Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and—one year after the issuance of that print—by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls.[1]

 

[unofan]

If I'm reading Scotusblog correctly there have been no decisions handed down since Monday. Is that indicative of an important decision coming next or does it mean nothing?

Actually, how far in advance are the decisions written from when they are announced? I suppose they have to be printed? Are the justices (well, their clerks) up all night drafting, or have the decisions actually been finished days in advance? Who decides what order in which the cases are decided and announced, the CJ?

Edit: I guess the slip opinion, which is the original announcement, does not have to wait to be printed. From Wikipedia:

They're normally handed down only on Mondays following conferences. Though come June the court will add extra days to get everything done by the end of the month. That will happen next week, as they've already announced they'll release opinions on Thursday as well as Monday. Should probably expect two or even three release days the week after as well.

There is nothing to signal in the timing, they release opinions as they're done. It was unusual to only have one this last week, but there are no tea leaves to read from that other than next week will probably have more simply because they need to get them out the door over the next three weeks. There are probably five or six opinion days left and 20 cases left, so we should be seeing 3-4 at a time going forward.

Conventional wisdom is that the ACA case will get released on the second to last day, and gay marriage on the last day, but that's just everyone's best guess based on when they were heard and the likelihood of vociferous (and lengthy) dissents. There's nothing requiring that, they could come out the same day and aren't necessarily going to be the last ones decided, either.

 

[unofan]

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

The only rule on announcing them is that they're released in reverse seniority order any given day. So if the first opinion is by Alito, for instance, you know that Kagan and Sotomeyer don't have any that day.

Otherwise as I said, they're released when they're done.