Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-03-2011, 09:06 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default SCOTAL Itch

It's the first Monday of October, which means the Supreme Court of the United States is again open for business! SCOTUSblog has a massive linkfarm of previews right here.

The constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- which even the government is asking the Court to review -- figures to occupy center stage and generate a massive political stink come June 2012, but that's far from the only interesting issue. Tomorrow, for instance, the Court will hear argument in a couple of cases involving whether the right to counsel under the U.S. Constitution applies to state law habeas corpus and similar proceedings. The Court hasn't expressed much interest in such state law post-conviction proceedings before.

This here thread can serve as a dumping ground for news, views, questions, tirades, etc. regarding the new Supreme Court term.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-03-2011), chunksmediocrites (10-03-2011), Clutch Munny (10-03-2011), D. Scarlatti (10-03-2011), Janet (10-06-2011), LadyShea (10-03-2011), Nullifidian (10-05-2011), The Man (10-06-2011), viscousmemories (10-06-2011), vremya (10-04-2011)
  #2  
Old 10-03-2011, 09:07 PM
wei yau's Avatar
wei yau wei yau is offline
Tellifying
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: XCCCLXI
Images: 155
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
This here thread can serve as a dumping ground for news, views, questions, tirades, etc. regarding the new Supreme Court term. is an obvious play for thread title of the month.
:fixed:
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-03-2011), Angakuk (10-04-2011), Ari (10-03-2011), chunksmediocrites (10-03-2011), Clutch Munny (10-03-2011), Crumb (10-03-2011), curses (10-04-2011), D. Scarlatti (10-03-2011), Deadlokd (10-04-2011), Janet (10-06-2011), JoeP (10-04-2011), lisarea (10-03-2011), livius drusus (10-03-2011), Nullifidian (10-05-2011), Pan Narrans (10-03-2011), Sauron (10-04-2011), Sock Puppet (10-03-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-03-2011), Stormlight (10-04-2011), The Man (10-06-2011), viscousmemories (10-06-2011), vremya (10-04-2011), Ymir's blood (10-04-2011)
  #3  
Old 10-03-2011, 09:12 PM
livius drusus's Avatar
livius drusus livius drusus is offline
Admin of THIEVES and SLUGABEDS
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: LVCCCLXXII
Images: 5
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

If only all our shameless currying for thread title of the month came out this well.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
D. Scarlatti (10-03-2011), Deadlokd (10-04-2011), JoeP (10-04-2011), Nullifidian (10-05-2011), Qingdai (10-03-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-03-2011), The Man (10-06-2011), Ymir's blood (10-04-2011)
  #4  
Old 10-03-2011, 09:23 PM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

I'm looking forward to the it's-a-free-exercise-of-religion-to-fire-a-disabled-employee case.

#WWJD
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-03-2011), Clutch Munny (10-03-2011), Deadlokd (10-04-2011), erimir (10-03-2011), Nullifidian (10-05-2011), Qingdai (10-03-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-03-2011), Stormlight (10-04-2011), The Man (10-06-2011), viscousmemories (10-06-2011), Watser? (10-06-2011)
  #5  
Old 10-03-2011, 09:50 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Is that the Hosanna-Tabor case or some other abomination that I have yet to hear of?

I hope it's Hosanna-Tabor, because lol Wallbuilders.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (10-05-2011), The Man (01-07-2012)
  #6  
Old 10-03-2011, 10:21 PM
D. Scarlatti's Avatar
D. Scarlatti D. Scarlatti is offline
Babby Police
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XMMMDLVIII
Images: 3
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Yeah that's it. We had a similar one here, but it was age discrimination, not disability.

Also the eyewitness evidence case, Perry v. New Hampshire, should be very interesting indeed (something of a Wisconsin corollary here).
__________________
My dwarves will refudiate.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (10-05-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-06-2011), The Man (01-07-2012)
  #7  
Old 10-06-2011, 02:30 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti View Post
Well, THAT was no fun! The suspense disappeared before the opinions began. :sadcheer:

Anyway, the transcript of today's oral argument in Hosanna-Tabor is available here. You can't help but love how in Scalia's mind the wall of separation between religion and government is sky high and impregnable in cases such as this, but dissolves completely in other contexts.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-08-2011), Clutch Munny (10-06-2011), D. Scarlatti (10-06-2011), Nullifidian (10-06-2011), Qingdai (10-06-2011), The Man (01-07-2012), viscousmemories (10-06-2011), Watser? (10-06-2011)
  #8  
Old 01-12-2012, 02:12 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti View Post
I'm looking forward to the it's-a-free-exercise-of-religion-to-fire-a-disabled-employee case.

#WWJD
And yes, firing a disabled employee is indeed a free exercise of religion:

Quote:
Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC at 13-14 (pdf, 39 pages).

The vote was 9-0. The Court had no trouble deciding that the fired employee in this case was a "minister" for purposes of this constitutionally-mandated exception to employment discrimination laws, but declined to establish definitive criteria for use in other cases. Thomas would require that courts defer to the churches on that issue.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Clutch Munny (01-12-2012), Kael (01-12-2012), Nullifidian (01-12-2012), Qingdai (01-12-2012), The Man (01-20-2012)
  #9  
Old 10-06-2011, 08:37 AM
Qingdai's Avatar
Qingdai Qingdai is offline
Dogehlaugher -Scrutari
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest
Gender: Female
Posts: XVCCCIII
Images: 164
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

If I knew that teaching a religious class made one a minister, I'd be afraid to teach comparative religions!

So many bosses!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-08-2011), maddog (10-06-2011), Nullifidian (10-06-2011), The Man (01-07-2012), Watser? (10-06-2011)
  #10  
Old 10-08-2011, 12:26 AM
Dingfod's Avatar
Dingfod Dingfod is offline
A fellow sophisticate
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cowtown, Kansas
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 21
Images: 92
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

I only came here to tell you to be careful and not nick a blood vessel like I did when I scratched my scrotum because I totally read the thread title as scrotal itch.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-17-2011, 07:31 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Today the Court decided to hear United States v. Alvarez, which involves whether and to what extent the government can criminalize false claims of having received a medal or decoration during military service. :ff:'s prior discussion of the Stolen Valor Act and the Ninth Circuit case that SCOTUS just agreed to review is available here.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Clutch Munny (10-17-2011), D. Scarlatti (10-18-2011), Nullifidian (10-17-2011), Qingdai (10-18-2011), SR71 (12-13-2011), Stormlight (10-25-2011), The Man (01-07-2012), viscousmemories (10-18-2011)
  #12  
Old 10-21-2011, 09:47 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

United States v. Jones is scheduled for oral argument on November 8. The issues are whether the pigs violate the Fourth Amendment when, without consent or a warrant, they (1) install a GPS tracking device on someone's vehicle and/or (2) use the device to track the vehicle's movements on public streets. Some lawprof commentary on why the case isn't the no-brainer ya might think is available here and here.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Demimonde (10-21-2011), Nullifidian (10-22-2011), Qingdai (10-21-2011), Stormlight (10-25-2011), The Man (01-07-2012), viscousmemories (10-21-2011)
  #13  
Old 12-13-2011, 12:46 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Today the Supreme Court agreed to hear Arizona v. U.S. The issue is whether the lower federal courts (U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) properly enjoined enforcement of certain components of Arizona's S.B. 1070, the We Hate Us Some Brown-Ass Messicans but Nonetheless Consider Them an Indispensable Component of our Much-Beloved Prison Labor System Act, discussed here.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
curses (12-15-2011), D. Scarlatti (12-15-2011), Janet (12-14-2011), livius drusus (12-13-2011), Nullifidian (12-13-2011), Sock Puppet (12-13-2011), SR71 (12-13-2011), The Man (11-27-2012), viscousmemories (01-06-2012), Vivisectus (12-13-2011), vremya (12-13-2011), Watser? (12-13-2011)
  #14  
Old 06-28-2012, 04:03 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMCMXXXII
Images: 2
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Today the Court decided to hear United States v. Alvarez, which involves whether and to what extent the government can criminalize false claims of having received a medal or decoration during military service. :ff:'s prior discussion of the Stolen Valor Act and the Ninth Circuit case that SCOTUS just agreed to review is available here.
The 9th is upheld (i.e. the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional) 6-3. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito in dissent.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (06-28-2012)
  #15  
Old 01-06-2012, 10:17 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

This here poast is a repository for briefs filed in the pending Supreme Court cases dealing with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We'll arrange 'em by issue.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE:

- The merit brief of the Solicitor General on behalf of the government is here (pdf, 130 pages). The government argues that statutory requirement to procure health insurance coverage or face a financial penalty is (1) valid under the Commerce Clause in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause, and (2) a proper exercise of the taxing power.

- An amicus brief (pdf, 46 pages) filed by AARP in support of the individual mandate is available here.

SEVERABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE:

The issue here is whether the individual mandate is "severable" from the rest of the PPACA. If so, the rest of the legislation stands even of the mandate is ruled unconstitutional. If not, a finding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional will drag down some or all of the remaining PPACA provisions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit previously ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional but wholly severable from the remainder of the Act.

- A group of private litigants challenging the 11th Circuit's severability ruling filed its brief (pdf, 235 pages) today. Severability, the litigants correctly argue, involves determining Congressional intent. The litigants contend that the individual mandate operates as a giant subsidy for the insurance industry, a subsidy that essentially funds the PPACA's prohibitions against denying coverage or charging increased premiums because of preexisting conditions, along with numerous similar prohibitions. The argument is that without the individual mandate Congress would not have enacted the insurance regulations, and without those provisions the rest of the PPACA is an empty shell. Thus, so the argument goes, we've gotta conclude that Congress did not intend any other provision of the PPACA to stand absent the mandate.

- The states challenging PPACA also filed their brief (pdf, 169 pages) on severability today. The thrust of the state's argument is the same as that of the private litigants.

WHETHER THE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT BARS THESE LAWSUITS:

#

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PPACA'S MEDICAID EXPANSION PROVISIONS:

#
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson

Last edited by Stephen Maturin; 01-07-2012 at 01:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (01-07-2012), Ensign Steve (01-16-2012), SR71 (01-07-2012), The Man (01-07-2012), viscousmemories (01-07-2012), vremya (01-07-2012)
  #16  
Old 01-06-2012, 10:58 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDX
Images: 523
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

If I understood the report I heard on NPR recently, Montana's Supreme Court has recently restored a 100-year-old state ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates. That's a direct challenge to the Citizens United ruling, no?
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-06-2012, 11:17 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

The Montana case is linked here. Whether that ruling qualifies as a direct challenge to Citizens United depends on who you believe. The majority in the Montana case determined that Citizens United wasn't controlling based on what they considered significant differences between the laws under consideration in the two cases. The dissenters in the Montana case said that Citizens United is a shitty decision but controlling nonetheless.

The Montana decision just came down, and the losers haven't yet sought SCOTUS review. When they do, I suspect that they'll have a much better chance of getting in than most.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (01-07-2012), Kael (01-06-2012), SR71 (01-07-2012), The Lone Ranger (01-06-2012), The Man (01-07-2012)
  #18  
Old 02-10-2012, 10:22 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
If I understood the report I heard on NPR recently, Montana's Supreme Court has recently restored a 100-year-old state ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates. That's a direct challenge to the Citizens United ruling, no?
The Supreme Court proceedings are off to a flying start in this one. The losing parties have filed an application (pdf, 45 pages) with Justice Kennedy (in his capacity as circuit justice for the Ninth Circuit) to stay the Montana Supreme Court's decision pending the outcome of their request for SCOTUS review.

In fact, they're going a few steps further than that. They're asking that SCOTUS (1) treat their stay application as a petition for certiorari, (2) grant cert and (3) summarily reverse the Montana Supreme Court because its ruling is so completely contrary to Citizens United that it can't possibly stand.

Justice Kennedy has requested that the state file a response by 2/15.

The lawyer for the parties challenging the Montana law is the guy who ultimately won Citizens United. Dude's whole life revolves around destroying campaign finance reform through litigation.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Clutch Munny (02-11-2012), Dingfod (02-11-2012), Qingdai (02-10-2012), Sock Puppet (02-13-2012), SR71 (02-11-2012), The Man (02-10-2012), viscousmemories (03-11-2012)
  #19  
Old 02-19-2012, 03:25 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

The Montana Supreme Court's campaign finance decision looks doomed. SCOTUS granted the stay application presented to Justice Kennedy, which means that the Montana ruling is stayed until SCOTUS decides whether to take the case. Of course, the fact that SCOTUS granted the stay means that at least five justices think the parties challenging the Montana case have a "substantial likelihood of success on the merits," which kinda makes granting cert. a foregone conclusion.

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer wrote:

Quote:
Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___ (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 42). A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.
Unfortunately, they were among the dissenters in Citizens United, and there's no indication of a change of heart by anyone in the Citizens United majority. Even Ginsburg and Breyer voted to grant the stay "[b]ecause lower courts are bound to follow this Court’s decisions until they are withdrawn or modified[.]" That suggests no one is taking seriously the Montana Supreme Court majority's argument that its case is sufficiently distinguishable on its facts to render Citizens United inapplicable.

There's not enough time left in the current SCOTUS term for the case to get decided through normal channels. It'll carry over until next term unless a majority of the justices think that a summary reversal is appropriate.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Clutch Munny (02-20-2012), Kael (02-20-2012), Nullifidian (02-19-2012), Qingdai (02-20-2012), The Man (02-19-2012), viscousmemories (03-11-2012)
  #20  
Old 03-26-2012, 08:05 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

The first oral argument in the health care cases took place today, limited to the issue of whether the federal Anti-Injunction Act bars lawsuits challenging the individual mandate prior to government action to enforce the mandate. A yes answer would mean that all the lawsuits challenging the mandate magically disappear. However, based on an admittedly quick 'n' dirty review of the argument transcript, a yes answer appears about as likely a young, hoodie-wearing African American male being viewed and treated as an actual human being in Florida. AFAICT, none of the justices is interested in dismissing the pending ACA cases on Anti-Injunction Act grounds.

No huge surprises there. Even the Justice Department opposes the AIA argument. The Court had to appoint an amicus curiae to argue in favor of dismissal.

The big issues, which it now looks highly likely the Court will decide, are whether the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress' commerce power and/or taxing power and whether the health care law's Medicaid provisions is an unconstitutionally coercive exercise of the spending power. The odds of a Court this conservative upholding the mandate look p. slim.

The transcript and audio files of today's arguments are available here.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (03-27-2012), chunksmediocrites (04-04-2012), Dingfod (03-26-2012), LadyShea (04-02-2012), Nullifidian (03-26-2012), SR71 (03-29-2012), The Man (06-26-2012), Watser? (03-28-2012)
  #21  
Old 06-25-2012, 04:03 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMCMXXXII
Images: 2
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
The Montana Supreme Court's campaign finance decision looks doomed. SCOTUS granted the stay application presented to Justice Kennedy, which means that the Montana ruling is stayed until SCOTUS decides whether to take the case. Of course, the fact that SCOTUS granted the stay means that at least five justices think the parties challenging the Montana case have a "substantial likelihood of success on the merits," which kinda makes granting cert. a foregone conclusion.

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer wrote:

Quote:
Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___ (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 42). A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.
Unfortunately, they were among the dissenters in Citizens United, and there's no indication of a change of heart by anyone in the Citizens United majority. Even Ginsburg and Breyer voted to grant the stay "[b]ecause lower courts are bound to follow this Court’s decisions until they are withdrawn or modified[.]" That suggests no one is taking seriously the Montana Supreme Court majority's argument that its case is sufficiently distinguishable on its facts to render Citizens United inapplicable.

There's not enough time left in the current SCOTUS term for the case to get decided through normal channels. It'll carry over until next term unless a majority of the justices think that a summary reversal is appropriate.
Summarily reversed 5-4.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (06-25-2012), Janet (06-26-2012), Nullifidian (06-26-2012), Qingdai (06-26-2012), Stephen Maturin (06-27-2012), The Man (06-26-2012), Watser? (06-26-2012)
  #22  
Old 11-26-2012, 10:05 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

One of the many lawsuits contesting the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate was Liberty University v. Geithner, previously discussed here. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in September 2011 that the federal Anti-Injunction Act barred the lawsuit, even though none of the parties to the case made any AIA-based arguments on appeal.

The Supreme Court denied Liberty U's petition for certiorari, choosing to use other cases as vehicles for deciding the constitutionality of the individual mandate and Medicaid provisions. When the Court ruled in June that the IM was a valid exercise of the federal Taxing Power, it also ruled that the AIA didn't apply.

Over the summer Liberty filed a petition for reconsideration of the cert denial. Today the Supreme Court granted that petition, vacated the September 2011 court of appeals decision and remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration in light of last term's Obamacare ruling.

In their lawsuit Liberty U. and two individual plaintiffs challenged both the individual mandate and a separate provision requiring "large employers" (50 or more full-time employees) to offer full-time employees and their dependents a chance to enroll in an employer-sponsored health plan or, under certain conditions, pay a fine.

Liberty's complaint followed the "kitchen sink" approach, contending that both the individual and employer mandates: exceed the scope of Congress' authority under Art. I, Section 8 of the Constitution; violate the plaintiffs' rights under the Establishment, Free Exercise, Free Speech and Free Association Clauses of the First Amendment; violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; violate the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution; violate the restrictions on capitations and direct taxes imposed in Article I, Section 9; and violate the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Last term's ruling precludes any claim that the individual mandate exceeds Congress' enumerated authority (and probably the Art. I, Sec. 9 challenge as well), but today's SCOTUS order revives the rest of Liberty's claims. The trial court dismissed (pdf, 54 pages) all those claims back in November 2010, but the Fourth Circuit must now consider those claims on the merits. Regardless of how the appellate court rules, it looks like Obamacare will be back in front of the Supreme Court next year.

By the way, Liberty University used to be known as Liberty Baptist College. It's the very same institution founded by the thankfully dead Jerry Falwell. Its lawyer is Mat Staver, the craven liar who runs Falwell's wingnut activist law firm, Liberty Counsel, and serves as dean of Liberty U's law school.

Essentially, Staver is claiming that RFRA and various provisions of the Constitution permit Liberty and the other plaintiffs to ignore the provisions of Obamacare they don't like on religious grounds. In other words, it's another case of wingnuts demanding "special rights."
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (12-27-2012), Clutch Munny (11-27-2012), Janet (11-28-2012), Kael (11-27-2012), Kyuss Apollo (11-27-2012), LadyShea (11-26-2012), lisarea (11-26-2012), Nullifidian (11-27-2012), Pyrrho (12-08-2012), Sock Puppet (11-26-2012), SR71 (11-27-2012), The Man (11-26-2012), Ymir's blood (11-26-2012)
  #23  
Old 11-27-2012, 02:39 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDLIX
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C. v. Howard, 568 U.S. ___ (2012) (pdf, 5 pages).

Nothing much to see in this here summary decision issued today. It's just another example of the odious precept that when full and fair access to courts is pitted against an arbitration clause, the arbitration clause always wins.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Clutch Munny (11-27-2012), Janet (11-28-2012), LadyShea (11-27-2012), Nullifidian (11-27-2012), Pyrrho (12-08-2012)
  #24  
Old 01-12-2012, 03:30 PM
Clutch Munny's Avatar
Clutch Munny Clutch Munny is offline
Clutchenheimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMLXXXVIII
Images: 1
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

What a fucked-up country.
__________________
Your very presence is making me itchy.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-12-2012, 03:38 PM
Sock Puppet's Avatar
Sock Puppet Sock Puppet is online now
The final nonsense situation
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Down by the Bay
Posts: XMMMDCCCXCIX
Blog Entries: 7
Images: 120
Default Re: SCOTAL Itch

Heard that on NPR yesterday. Seriously, is Thomas's entire career an elaborate troll? Is his Clarence mask going to slip off one day to reveal Gallagher or something?
__________________
:sockpuppet:...........
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dingfod (01-12-2012), Nullifidian (01-20-2012), Qingdai (01-12-2012), SR71 (01-12-2012), Stephen Maturin (01-12-2012), The Man (01-20-2012)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.16402 seconds with 14 queries