What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Holy crap this dissent delivers:

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges. “[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.
Click to expand...

The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. Ante, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Afford- able Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.” Ante, at 13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)
Click to expand...
 
Shirtless Guy said:
Could you please elaborate?
Click to expand...

The fair housing act prohibits discrimination in the rental and sale of housing. One way to prove it is through intent - you didn't rent to me because I'm black, and i can prove it by showing you dropped the n word on me. Those claims are known as disparate treatment.

This was about disparate impact claims. You have a facially neutral policy that ends up weeding out minorities, intentionally or not.

The court says that kind of claim is also allowed, though the brief reading of the syllabus appears to show it is limiting such claims.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Oh man, it keeps getting better:

This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

unofan said:
The fair housing act prohibits discrimination in the rental and sale of housing. One way to prove it is through intent - you didn't rent to me because I'm black, and i can prove it by showing you dropped the n word on me. Those claims are known as disparate treatment.

This was about disparate impact claims. You have a facially neutral policy that ends up weeding out minorities, intentionally or not.

The court says that kind of claim is also allowed, though the brief reading of the syllabus appears to show it is limiting such claims.
Click to expand...

That seems reasonable on its face if the disparate impact is limited.
 
Kepler said:
I'd forgotten that was 5-4.

What's with Roberts? Is he trying to rescue the Court from charges of being purely partisan post Bush v Gore?
Click to expand...

Roberts almost certainly had an eye on history with the first ACA case. It's pretty clear he was going to vote to shoot it down and then switched late in the game. Might even explain why the dissent was unsigned - he might have written most of it himself as a majority opinion and the other four simply copied it for their dissent.

It's clear he's still conservative, but he's not as partisan as Alito, for instance. Roberts can likely be seen primarily as a corporatist, as his votes often fall inline with the Chamber of Commerce's positions.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Holy crap this dissent delivers:
Click to expand...

I guess it all depends on what State means. Does "The State" refer to all forms of government or just to the several states?

It looks like the Court bought the former. If the Congress had said "a State", then the outcome may have been different.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

bronconick said:
Watching CNN react this time after utterly misreading the ruling last time is hilarious.
Click to expand...

You mean their 10 minutes of John King looking at opinion surveys while every other news organization was already reporting on the ruling? Remember, people's opinions on the news is also news!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

French Rage said:
You mean their 10 minutes of John King looking at opinion surveys while every other news organization was already reporting on the ruling? Remember, people's opinions on the news is also news!
Click to expand...

My favorite is when the news outlet covers its own coverage as news.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

BWAAAAAA HAHAAHAHAHA!!!

Okay, I'm publically calling out Fishbreath on this one. Once again you've been astroglided by Justice Roberts. Still think he has a secret plan to get rid of the ACA? Any OTHER predictions for us? I just hope he had the decency to give you a reach around afterwards :D (obscure R Lee Emery quote from Full Metal Jacket). :D:D:D:D

Once again liberalism is rammed down the throat of conservatives. The ACA is PERMANENT! It's the Law of the Land, so deal with it already.

Still waiting for that GOP alternative however. I'm sure its coming any day now. :rolleyes:
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

No surprise as the Court's liberal tilt continues.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Bob Gray said:
No surprise as the Court's liberal tilt continues.
Click to expand...


Gotta agree with Bob here. The Court has taken a decided swing to the left. Having said that...

BWAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Rover said:
Gotta agree with Bob here. The Court has taken a decided swing to the left. Having said that...

BWAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

As SCOTUSblog pointed out, a more liberal court probably doesn't even grant cert on either of the two cases decided today. There was no circuit split in the FHA case, and the ACA case was a long shot before SCOTUS granted cert.

So just because the court went left in the opinions doesn't mean the court itself is left.

It could be that the conservative wing is simply granting cert in more long shot cases, figuring it has nothing to lose. Meanwhile the liberal wing is not voting to grant cert as much, since it would have a lot to lose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top