Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 53

Thread: Scotus

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    Supremes agree to hear Affirmative Action case.

    This one will be big and controversial. At root, it is a policy that grew out of attempts to undo the wrongs of slavery. While non slave states like California have moved beyond affirmative action this will be watched closely in the south.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1
    The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will reconsider whether affirmative action may be considered when public universities choose which students to admit, revisiting a 2003 decision that allows race as a factor in admission decisions.

    The court will hear a white student’s claims that the University of Texas’s race-conscious admission policy cost her a spot in the freshman class. The justices will hear the case in the term that begins in October, making it likely that affirmative action will be an issue in the fall elections.

    The Obama administration has supported Texas in the case and has advised colleges and universities that under the court’s 2003 decision, they may still make some race-based decisions to expand campus diversity.

    Opponents of affirmative action hope that the current court, more conservative than the one that made the 2003 decision, will rule out the use of race.
    Despite the go-ahead, many states — California, for instance — do not allow admissions officials to consider race in their decisions.
    More detail here,

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/af...iew-next-term/
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    America’s biggest liar gets his day at the Supreme Court. This was far from the only lie he told.
    Does a lie claiming you were awarded military honors violate the 1st amendment protection of free speech?


    http://www.npr.org/2012/02/20/147159...us-unnecessary


    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...tes-v-alvarez/
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    There won’t be much interest in this outside the US, but I thought I’d post it anyway for record purposes.

    It’s a measure of how seriously people take the court and this case in particular, that lines for the available seats began 72 hours in advance. The reason it’s a big deal is that 26 states have sued the Federal Government over at least four different provisions of a new law that requires everyone to buy health insurance. Instead of the typical one hour of oral argument the Supremes have allocated six hours over three days, the longest in 45 years.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...eYWS_blog.html
    The Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the health reform law are among the most-watched in decades, the longest that the justices have heard in 45 years. With just a handful of seats available to the public, lines began forming outside the Supreme Court at 9 a.m. Friday morning, exactly three days before the Justices would open the hearing.
    Reasons why there is no live radio or TV of oral argument.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...cc=nh-20120324

    The case is so big, SCOTUSblog the go to resource on matters relating to the court, had to create it’s own separate section. Just reading the table of contents is tiresome.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/category/s...s/health-care/
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    If you want to listen to a couple of short clips from oral argument at this week’s extravaganza this 8 minute piece has a few. Audio and transcript.

    http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149480...weight-mandate

    A few more highlights.

    DAY 2 -- SCOTUSblog's Lyle Dennison writes that "It is Kennedy's call": "If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government's defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone." http://bit. ly/HgLGIx

    --Kennedy: "[The government says] the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, [the government will] say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world, both markets - stipulate two markets - the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That's my concern in the case."

    --Former Kennedy clerk Orin Kerr interprets: "Reading the tea leaves, it sounds like Justice Kennedy accepts the basic framework of the challengers that mandates are different and especially troubling. Instead of saying that mandates are therefore banned, however, Justice Kennedy would require the government to show some special circumstances justifying the mandate in each case. The answered question in this case is whether the special economics of the health care market justifies the mandate here." http:// bit.ly/GUFZAk

    TALKING HEADS: CNN's Jeffrey Toobin: "This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, was enormously skeptical. Justice Alito, Justice Scalia, were constantly skeptical. Justice Thomas didn't say anything but we know his position on the issue. The only conservative justice who looked like he might uphold the law was Chief Justice Roberts who asked hard questions of both sides. All four liberal justices tried as hard as they could to make the arguments in favor of the law, but they were -- they did not meet with their success with their colleagues. Most surprising to me perhaps, Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general, did a simply awful job defending the law. He was nervous, he was not well-spoken. The argument got off to a very bad start for the administration."
    The court appointed an amici curiae to make an argument neither party to the case was prepared to make. More below.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...c=nl_headlines
    Pity Robert Long. The Washington-based lawyer was specially invited by the Supreme Court to make the case for a legal position that neither party in the health-care challenge was willing to take.
    Yet no sooner did he launch into his argument at Monday’s hearing than the justices began ripping it to shreds.

    “That’s not the way the statute reads . . . that’s carrying it too far,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor objected at one point.

    “It seems you can’t separate those two points,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. complained at another.

    “It seems to me it’s a question you can’t answer,” Justice Antonin Scalia concluded.

    Such can be the lot of the “amici curiae,” or friends of the court, whom the Supreme Court justices tap when they want to hear a side of an issue that no one else involved supports.

    And it’s the fate that could await H. Bartow Farr III, who will come before the justices on Wednesday, the third and final day of hearings on the challenge to the 2010 health-care law.

    Farr, a private lawyer and longtime member of the Supreme Court bar, will argue that even if the court invalidates the law’s mandate that nearly all Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty, it should leave the rest of the law intact. (The government argues that if the mandate goes, so should several of the law’s regulations on insurers. The law’s challengers contend that the entire statute should be overturned.)
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    For those like me who don’t have time to read the excellent and comprehensive scoutusblog; http://www.scotusblog.com/ and
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/sc...t-have-missed/


    here’s the best short roundup I’ve seen.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...uments/255251/
    Now safely ensconced 1,500 or so miles from the crucible of Washington, and having slept not once but twice on it, I'd like to wrap up this extraordinary week in legal history with a few brief thoughts about the just-completed arguments in the Affordable Care Act cases. A lot of people who care about the law, and politics, and health care will remember this week for a very long time, no matter what the United States Supreme Court decides about the federal health care law. And it's funny how even just two days away from the melee has given me a little perspective on what went down.
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    From the dept. of careful what you wish for. Conservatives are praying the Court will overturn the healthcare law. Here’s a brief look at what will likely happen if they do.


    PREEMPTION DOCTRINE -- E.J. DIONNE GOES NEGATIVE ON THE COURT in Monday's column : "[C]onservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. ... The conservative justices were obsessed with weird hypotheticals. ... Liberals should learn from this display that there is no point in catering to today's hard-line conservatives. The individual mandate was a conservative idea that President Obama adopted to preserve the private market in health insurance rather than move toward a government-financed single-payer system. What he got back from conservatives was not gratitude but charges of socialism -- for adopting their own proposal.

    "The irony is that if the court's conservatives overthrow the mandate, they will hasten the arrival of a more government-heavy system. Justice Anthony Kennedy even hinted that it might be more 'honest' if government simply used 'the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single-payer.' Remember those words. ... [A] court that gave us Bush v. Gore and Citizens United will prove conclusively that it sees no limits on its power, no need to defer to those elected to make our laws. A Supreme Court that is supposed to give us justice will instead deliver ideology."
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    If you’ve never heard Supreme Court oral argument take a few minutes to listen to one or more of the numberd links. They are edited and curated highlights of each of the four 90 minute sessions reduced to 15-30 minutes. The last link has more humor than a typical oral argument.

    The upside of these links is that they are faster than the full audio and you get to hear the most important exchanges. The downside, you don’t get to hear the complete cut and thrust, such as mid answer interruptions by the justices. You have to go to the full audio for that, which is also available on the SCOTUSblog at the first link below and at the Supreme Court site link below. Last four links in the first box. I took a look at the thread on this topic over at (another place) and several noted they were fascinated by the debate.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/sc...t-have-missed/

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ent_audio.aspx



    SCOTUSblog Day 1
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/we...-dont-have-to/

    Day 2
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/hi...idual-mandate/

    Day 3
    A:
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/hi...rance-mandate/

    B: some humour

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/au...sion-argument/
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    More analysis of last week’s events.


    1) TOOBIN: The Supreme Court could redefine what government can do. "The decision is a great deal more important than its immediate political aftermath. It’s about what the government can do, not just who runs it. If the Court acts in line with the sentiments expressed by the conservatives last week, it could curtail the policymaking options of Congress for a generation. An adverse decision on the Affordable Care Act could even jeopardize the prospects for conservative legislative priorities, like health-insurance vouchers or private retirement accounts in lieu of Social Security. It is simply not the Supreme Court’s business to be making these kinds of judgments. The awesome, and final, powers of the Justices are best exercised sparingly and with restraint. Their normal burdens of interpreting laws are heavy enough. No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be remembered, is not exactly their strength, either." Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker.

    4) PEARLSTEIN: The Supreme Court won't overturn Obamacare. "I don’t agree with the conventional wisdom that, in light of last week’s oral arguments, it’s a sure thing that the court will overturn the law or its individual mandate. Judging from their blatantly partisan bleating from the bench, it is certain that Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito will join Clarence Thomas in doing whatever it takes to impose their conservative, free-market, nothing’s-changed-since-1788 agenda on the country...In the end, Roberts will see the institutional peril in overturning the most significant piece of domestic legislation in a generation, particularly in the wake of the overtly partisan decisions of Bush v. Gore and the Citizens United. With Kennedy in tow, the chief is likely to articulate a modest new limit on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce that would allow health reform to proceed in some fashion." Steven Pearlstein in The Washington Post
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    Both the R’s and D’s will attempt to use the SCOTUS healthcare decision to their political advantage, whatever the decision happens to be, but the momentum for such advantage appears to favor the D's.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/us...1&ref=politics
    WASHINGTON — For decades, Republicans have railed every four years against the Supreme Court and its perceived liberal activism to spur conservatives to elect presidents who will appoint like-minded justices. Now strategists in both parties are suggesting this could be the Democrats’ year to make the court a foil to mobilize voters.
    The prospect arises both because of President Obama’s comments this week implicitly warning the court against striking down his signature domestic achievement, the expanded health insurance law, and because of recent court rulings, chiefly the Citizens United campaign finance decision, and looming cases on immigration and affirmative action that incite passions on the left.
    “There’s evidence here of a negative reaction from Democrats,” said Michael Dimock, Pew’s associate director for research. The justices “didn’t even decide anything yet, and many people walked away from their hearings feeling more negative about the court. So you can imagine the reaction if they overturn the law.”
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    Four cases to energize the Democrats. 1: Healthcare; 2: Affirmative Action; 3: Immigration; 4: Voting Rights.


    http://thehill.com/opinion/columnist...ore-the-public

    President Obama and Democrats are just getting started on the argument that the Supreme Court is under control of a bunch of right-wing bullies.
    Here are four high-profile, highly political cases with clear potential to advance the Democrats’ case by undermining the Supreme Court’s standing as an impartial, independent branch of government.
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    Several big decisions are imminent from SCOTUS before the end of term on June 21 or 25. Here’s a look at how the court works.

    HOW THE SUPREME COURT SAUSAGE IS MADE. Two days after the marathon health care arguments ended at the Supreme Court in March, the nine justices met alone in a room and cast their votes in the historic case. It would be easy to think that all the hard work was done—the justices had read the briefs, questioned the lawyers, and made up their minds about the case. Which might explain why Washington was abuzz about a rumor that the Court would issue its judgment before Memorial Day. It didn’t. And it probably won’t issue one until the term ends in late June. For the justices, everything is in the writing, and judicial writing takes time. Policy wonks care about the bottom line, but as National Journal’s Margot Sanger-Katz reports, the Court cares about the future.
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/magaz...-made-20120607
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    Next week is the last week of term for SCOTUS and the most important decision of the term is due.
    The court has so far decided 61 of the 67 cases before it. The press has been salivating for two weeks about the outcome of the Obamacare case. That decision could come as early as Monday, but will more likely come Wednesday or Thursday.

    Once it arrives it will likely suck the air out of all other US news for several days. The two other most widely watched cases for next week are an Arizona immigration law case, and a 1st amendment free speech case that centers on lying about the award of military honors.

    Below is the Friday round-up lifted from the SCOTUSblog, that looks at last Thursdays decisions, then looks forward to next week and next term.


    In Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the Court held that because the FCC had failed to provide Fox or ABC with “fair notice” that “fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent,” its indecency standards were too vague and could not be enforced against the broadcasts at issue. Coverage comes from Fox, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, the New York Daily News, Forbes (here and here), The Hollywood Reporter, Reuters, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Los Angeles Times, Variety, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, Ars Technica, PBS Newshour, the ABA Journal, Hollywood, the Washington Times, The Atlantic Wire, Gawker, Courthouse News Service, Slate, Jezebel, Comedy Central, BBC News, Constitutional Law Prof Blog, and The American Prospect.

    Other coverage of and commentary on the decision in Fox came from Edward Wyatt of The New York Times, who reports that the Court’s decision, coupled with current FCC regulations, “leaves broadcasters with little real grasp of what is allowed and what is not.” The editorial board of The Christian Science Monitor praised the Court’s decision, which in its view “struck the right balance between vice on TV and the vice of legal vagueness,” while the editorial board of The New York Times urged the FCC to “immediately” take the Court’s suggestion to “modify its current indecency policy.” And the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune weighs in on the decision as well, agreeing that “the FCC should stop trying to micromanage its slice of the broadcast business.” ThinkProgress, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, David Orentlicher of Concurring Opinions, Howard Wasserman of PrawfsBlawg, and Tony Perkins (in USA Today) also have commentary on the decision.

    In Knox v. SEIU, the Court held that employees who decline to join their public-sector union have a First Amendment right not to be compelled, without notice and the opportunity to object, to pay special assessments for political activities. Coverage of Knox comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg, MSNBC, Reuters, the Los Angeles Times (here and here), Financial Times, Forbes, ThinkProgress, the Sacramento Bee, the National Review Online, ABA Journal, UPI, and Courthouse News Service. Constitutional Law Prof Blog (here and here), Matt Bodie at PrawfsBlawg, National Review Online (here and here), and the San Francisco Bay Guardian all have commentary on the decision.

    In Southern Union Co. v. United States, the Court held (in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor) that a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increases the maximum fine for a criminal defendant. Forbes, Reuters, Courthouse News Service, and Greenwire cover the opinion. White Collar Crime Prof Blog and the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog offer commentary.

    In Dorsey v. United States, the Court held (in an opinion by Justice Breyer) that the Fair Sentencing Act – which reduced the disparities in the length of sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses – applies to defendants whose crack cocaine offenses occurred before the Act went into effect but were sentenced after the Act’s effective date. Coverage of Dorsey comes from the Washington Post, the Associated Press (via the Washington Post), the Chicago Sun-Times, Politic365, the Courthouse News Service, the Drug War Chronicle, and the (Columbus) Republic. At the Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, Doug Berman suggests that the opinion appears to be a victory for Justice Scalia in the ongoing fight over use of legislative history; the ACLU also has commentary on the decision.

    Several commentators assess the overall impact of yesterday’s four decisions. In The Nation, David Cole argues that, although yesterday’s decisions are “a mixed bag, politically,” “one thing is clear—this is not a shy or minimalist Court.” And in The American Prospect, Scott Lemieux cites the closely divided Dorsey and Knox rulings as evidence that “the Supreme Court should be a bigger issue in the presidential election than it currently is.”

    Turning to the Affordable Care Act cases, speculation on the outcome continues to dominate coverage. Bloomberg reports on a poll of constitutional law professors, USA Today reports on a poll of the general public, and the Wonkblog reports on a poll of former Supreme Court clerks. The Note (at ABC) reports that Nancy Pelosi remains confident that the Court will uphold the law, while Politico reports that the law’s opponents are preparing to celebrate. Ariane de Vogue of ABC outlines the issues in the case and the effect that the Court’s decision could have on ordinary citizens, while CNBC discusses its possible effects on small business owners. Politico reports on interviews with Randy Barnett and Ron Pollack about the implications of a decision invalidating the ACA. Dianna Ransom of Entrepreneur and George Zornick of The Nation describe possible post-decision scenarios; the Washington Post discusses potential long-term political fallout from the Court’s ruling. Uwe Reinhardt offers an economist’s take on anticipation of the opinion in The New York Times, Michael Millenson of Forbes compares the health care cases to Brown v. Board of Education, and David Lazarus argues in his column for the Los Angeles Times that a decision invalidating the mandate while leaving the insurance non-discrimination provisions standing would make U.S. health care worse. Finally, in The New Republic, Emily Bass and Einer Elhauge contend that “even the most conservative Supreme Court Justices have already declared mandates constitutional.”

    Briefly

    • The New Yorker parodies the business of betting on opinion outcomes; it puts at 7:1 the odds that “[the] Court outlaws life without parole for offenders who have purchased health insurance as long as they are under fourteen and haven’t immigrated to Arizona within the past twenty-four hours.”

    • For this blog, Lyle reports that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives will ask the Court to review the recent First Circuit opinion invalidating Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act; CNN and The Advocate also provide coverage.

    • The Tucson Citizen reports on anticipation of the Court’s opinion in Arizona v. United States (the S.B. 1070 case).

    • Looking to next Term, Roger Clegg and Joshua Thompson argue in The Christian Science Monitor that the Court should rule against affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.

    • Linda Campbell argues in the Columbia Dispatch that “the Court should loosen up on recording rules.”

    • In The New Republic, Jack Goldsmith explains why the Court leaks less than the CIA.

    • Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller suggests that President Obama might learn lessons from FDR about dealing with a loss at the Court.

    • At ACSblog, Alan Morrison discusses a liberal/conservative switch in literalist approaches to statutory interpretation in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. [Disclosure: The firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represented the petitioners in Christopher.]

    • In the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh discusses reporters’ strategies for covering opinion days at the Court.

    • At the National Review Online’s Bench Memos blog, Ammon Simon outlines (and seeks to rebut) the criticism of the Court that he expects if the Court strikes down part or all of the ACA.

    • In the Washington Post, Ezra Klein argues that “of course the Supreme Court is political.”

    • At Bloomberg View, Stephen L. Carter suggests that everyone should “lighten up about the Supreme Court.”

    • At Slate, Jed Shugerman proposes a constitutional amendment that would require the vote of six Justices to invalidate an Act of Congress.

    • At the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr offers preliminary thoughts on Florida v. Jardines, a Fourth Amendment case about use of drug detection dogs that will be argued next Term.

    • The Yale Law Journal Online’s “Summary Judgment” series has posted commentary on Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye — cases finding ineffective assistance of counsel in plea bargaining — by Judge Gerald Lynch, Judge Jed Rakoff, Nancy King, and Stephanos Bibas.
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    The big health care decision will be delivered at 10am on Thursday. But if you want to get a sense of how important a role SCOTUS plays in political life just look at the front pages of WaPo and NYT right now.


    http://www.nytimes.com/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    Today is the day we get to find out the fate of Obama’s health care law. It’s his signature piece of legislation. The two year old SCOTUSblog has already established itself as the pre-eminent source for information. Beginning at 10.am EDT, 3pm Irish the court will issue decisions in three separate cases. It is expected that health care will be last of the three decisions issued and will begin between 10.15 and 10.30. It is expected that about 250,000 people will log onto SCOTUSblog to follow it live. Anyone interested should click the link and and then click the blog in the top left. There is some concern that the site could crash. The live blogging has already begun.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/

    http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Wash DC
    Posts
    8,094

    Default Re: Scotus

    Obama broadly vindicated.
    As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Share us
Follow Us