IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Maybe Ginsberg saved the ACA by convincing Roberts.
http://www.newyorker...l?currentPage=all

And yet Ginsburg wrote what would have been the dissent — and a strong one — if Roberts had voted with the four conservatives to throw out the entire health-care law. Instead, her opinion concurred with Roberts when he said that the individual mandate was within Congress’s power to tax — this was the Constitutional loophole he found — but rejected his view that it wasn’t valid under the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. Ginsburg wasn’t gentle. She wrote that Roberts’s analysis was “rigid,” “crabbed,” and “stunningly retrogressive,” that it “finds no home in the text of the Constitution or our decisions” and made “scant sense.” There was also a mesmerizing dissection of the broccoli question. (Adam Gopnik has more on that, and Alex Ross has her favorite records.) Roberts’s view of the Commerce Clause, she wrote,

harks back to the era in which the Court routinely thwarted Congress’ efforts to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it…. It is a reading that should not have staying power.


“Staying power” is something that Ginsburg has. As Jeffrey Toobin says in this week’s Political Scene podcast, “Ruth Bader Ginsburg is seventy-nine. She is about five feet tall, eighty pounds, she has had every disease known to humanity. She is as tough as nails.” She made her way at a time when you could have a legal education from Harvard and Columbia and still be turned down for a job because you were a woman. She is not as loud or colorfully charismatic as Scalia — who is? — but neither does she seem to have learned to give up. (Those wondering about the liberal future of the Court might note that, on a point related to Medicaid expansion, Ginsburg was joined by only one Justice: Sonia Sotomayor.) We don’t know what happened inside the Court, or why Roberts voted the way he did. But by writing a scathing opinion, Ginsburg may at least have done him the favor of showing him what he might have looked like if he had signed on with Scalia: a political opportunist, and almost a fool.

[...]


(via Brad DeLong)

Cheers,
Scott.
New she also thinks that selling marijuana 200 ft from a school
is under federal purview under the commerce claus.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New Eh?
You talking about Lopez? The federal law about having a gun within 1000 feet of a school? She was on the dissenting side there.

http://en.wikipedia....d_States_v._Lopez

If not that, what are you referring to?

Cheers,
Scott.
New not that one, let me check later
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New I'm not sure if this is what he's talking about
When I was on the grand jury a couple years ago, we were informed that selling ANY marijuana within (some ridiculous distance) from a school was a felony crime as opposed to being a misdemeanor if it was under some weight. Similarly, if a child was within line of sight, it was also a felony.
Most of the cases we saw involved alcohol or drugs. Get rid of those, we'd be down to half a dozen cases a month. Maybe less.
New While we're talking about other USSC cases...
http://delong.typepa...ates-edition.html

Matt writes:

Live by the Technicality, Die by the Technicality: Orin Kerr on the ACA Decision: And that drinking age requirement [that states raise their drinking ages to 21 or have their federal interstate highway funds pulled] was enacted by none other than the sainted Ronald Reagan, and then upheld by none other than Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist in a 7-2 SCOTUS ruling. Furthermore, it's worth noting that the 21st Amendment has always been held as giving the states the power to regulate alcohol. So unlike Medicaid, it's a federal encroachment on a power explicitly reserved to the states.


Heh.

The case is South Dakota v Dole - http://en.wikipedia....th_Dakota_v._Dole The dissenting votes were Brennan and O'Connor.

Cheers,
Scott.
     SCOTUSBlog - Live blogging of the decision today. - (Another Scott) - (28)
         Mandate is constitutional. It's a tax. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
             of course it is a tax - (boxley) - (1)
                 Re: of course it is a tax - (Another Scott)
         Bottom line: - (Another Scott)
         It's a Glorious Day For Fascism! -NT - (mmoffitt) - (5)
             you meant "Socialism" </sarcasm> -NT - (lincoln) - (4)
                 no, facism is correct - (boxley) - (3)
                     how much did Big Pharma pay - (lincoln) - (2)
                         60 million, inflation ya know -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                             Never - (hnick)
         The 193 page opinion. - (Another Scott) - (9)
             I've not read many of these, but, ... - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                 It's not unusual. - (Another Scott)
                 gotta remember - (boxley)
                 Maybe Ginsberg saved the ACA by convincing Roberts. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                     she also thinks that selling marijuana 200 ft from a school - (boxley) - (4)
                         Eh? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                             not that one, let me check later -NT - (boxley)
                             I'm not sure if this is what he's talking about - (hnick)
                         While we're talking about other USSC cases... - (Another Scott)
         And in today's rendition of "Unclear On The Concept" - (malraux) - (2)
             ROFL! -NT - (boxley)
             </me falls over> -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Sullivan's has some interesting things in it - (malraux) - (1)
             Counterpoint. - (Another Scott)
         Romney: individual mandate is ultimate conservatism - (malraux)
         Backstory on how the decision was released and reported. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             I hereby bring suit against the SCOTUS for - (Ashton)

When things get freaky... and get NASTY... blame it on the BOOGIE!
376 ms