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

[dxmnkd316]

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

Subscribed but it was just a 5-4 vote in favor.

 

[unofan]

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

First up is the FHA case from Kennedy. 5-4 along ideological lines. Disparate impact claims are cognizable. Thomas dissented joined by the conservatives.

 

[unofan]

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

That is a bit of a shock since the issue had been granted for cert 3 different times (first 2 settled). Apparently those were the only four votes, they could not peel off Kennedy.

 

[dxmnkd316]

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

Roberts again siding with Obamacare. lol

Edit: This looks like Roberts writes the remaining opinions, right?

 

[French Rage]

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

According to WSJ, ACA ruling is next.

 

[Kepler]

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

There are 62k currently following SCOTUSblog. Wonder what that will be when Obergefell comes out.

 

[unofan]

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

Second up is healthcare. 6-3 upholding the subsidies. Written by the chief.

Kennedy is the 6th vote, along with the liberals.

 

[unofan]

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

And that's it. 2 down, five to go. There will be more tomorrow.

 

[Kepler]

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

Second up is healthcare. 6-3 upholding the subsidies. Written by the chief.

Kennedy is the 6th vote, along with the liberals.

What's your instinct on Roberts joining: tactical to write the majority, or legit?

 

[dxmnkd316]

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

This ACA opinion is probably going to be a fun read. I can only imagine how much the conservative side of the court with be frothing at the mouth over this one. Even moreso the conservatives in the legislative branch.

 

[unofan]

What's your instinct on Roberts joining: tactical to write the majority, or legit?

Without having read anything yet, probably legit. Or at least no more tactical than 3 years ago. This was a much easier case, that frankly probably shouldn't have even been granted in the first place.

I would guess Kennedy was the fourth vote for cert on it, not Roberts.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

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

First up is the FHA case from Kennedy. 5-4 along ideological lines. Disparate impact claims are cognizable. Thomas dissented joined by the conservatives.

Could you please elaborate?

 

[Kepler]

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

Without having read anything yet, probably legit. Or at least no more tactical than 3 years ago. This was a much easier case, that frankly probably shouldn't have even been granted in the first place.

I would guess Kennedy was the fourth vote for cert on it, not Roberts.

Why would Kennedy have granted?

 

[Kepler]

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

This ACA opinion is probably going to be a fun read. I can only imagine how much the conservative side of the court with be frothing at the mouth over this one. Even moreso the conservatives in the legislative branch.

I'm not sure how they can froth. Hasn't their "originalist" claim always been to look back at the legislative intent? In this case the intent was obvious -- this case was essentially about a typo.

 

[dxmnkd316]

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

Dear God, Scalia...

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.

 

[unofan]

Why would Kennedy have granted?

For the same reason he voted against the ACA three years ago? Who really knows, but since it takes four votes to grant cert, and I don't see Roberts as wanting to revisit it, I'd presume Kennedy was the fourth.

 

[dxmnkd316]

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

Why would Kennedy have granted?

No clue, but Scalia's dissent shows he must have known what would happen should it be granted writ.

This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.

And still very butthurt over it.

 

[Kepler]

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

For the same reason he voted against the ACA three years ago? Who really knows, but since it takes four votes to grant cert, and I don't see Roberts as wanting to revisit it, I'd presume Kennedy was the fourth.

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?

 

[bronconick]

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

Watching CNN react this time after utterly misreading the ruling last time is hilarious.

 

[GrinCDXX]

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

Dear God, Scalia...

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.

Like Fishy, Scalia apparently is unaware that the word "establish" can mean something other than simply being a synonym for "create".