The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#2,251
#2,251
From the oral arguments so far, there may not be a single vote to overturn the ACA.

Barrett and Gorsuch haven’t really shown their hand that I can tell.

Thomas and Alito are hung up on standing.

Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kavanaugh all seem to think the mandate can be severed from the rest of the law.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GoBigOrangeUT, Velo Vol and Mulevol93
#2,252
#2,252
RockyTop85 said:
From the oral arguments so far, there may not be a single vote to overturn

Barrett and Gorsuch haven’t really shown their hand that I can tell.

Thomas and Alito are hung up on standing.

Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kavanaugh all seek to think the mandate can be severed from the rest of the law.
Click to expand...
If you’re referring to the ACA, there’s no chance that it gets overturned. The only real question is whether or not they rule the individual mandate unconstitutional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray
#2,253
#2,253
midnight orange said:
Justices generally side with govt power, regardless of the nominating president’s cheerleading team. For all the ”the constitution is the greatest document ever written” fluffers out there, could you please explain the wisdom of having a govt branch responsible for the oversight of govt legislative and executive overreach? Once that is explained, please point to where the constitution grants the Supreme Court judicial review. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. That was a made up clause by a justice.

Seems to me congress could pass a law invalidating that ruling.
 
#2,255
#2,255
hog88 said:
We know how Roberts will vote.
Click to expand...
They will vote to sever the mandate and the ACA will stand. And that’s fine now Biden will be forced to find a way to fund it without forced participation or it implodes and is repealed in Congress. That’s how our system should work.
 
#2,256
#2,256
Boston Vol said:
If you’re referring to the ACA, there’s no chance that it gets overturned. The only real question is whether or not they rule the individual mandate unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I am. Sorry for the unclear statement. They’re having oral arguments, presently.

I’m not sure I understand your statement. The plaintiffs are attempting to invalidate the entire ACA by arguing that a mandate with no penalty is unconstitutional. Whether a mandate enforced by a penalty is constitutional was previously decided in Sebilius. Declaring a no-penalty mandate unconstitutional without striking down the law accomplishes nothing substantive.
 
#2,257
#2,257
NorthDallas40 said:
They will vote to sever the mandate and the ACA will stand. And that’s fine now Biden will be forced to find a way to fund it without forced participation or it implodes and is repealed in Congress. That’s how our system should work.
Click to expand...

Before today, I think that’s what most people thought. Now, I’m not sure they will even go that far, based on how arguments are going. Kavanaugh and Breyer have indicated that they think the mandate is now just precatory language. I think Kagan and Sotomayor would go with that. That leaves Roberts, Barrett, or Gorsuch as a possible fifth. You guys will have to tell me how Roberts would vote on that, I don’t know.
 
#2,258
#2,258
RockyTop85 said:
Before today, I think that’s what most people thought. Now, I’m not sure they will even go that far, based on how arguments are going. Kavanaugh and Breyer have indicated that they think the mandate is now just precatory language. I think Kagan and Sotomayor would go with that. That leaves Roberts, Barrett, or Gorsuch as a possible fifth. You guys will have to tell me how Roberts would vote on that, I don’t know.
Click to expand...
I’ll be shocked if it isn’t severed but I was shocked on Roberts initial vote on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#2,259
#2,259
NorthDallas40 said:
I’ll be shocked if it isn’t severed but I was shocked on Roberts initial vote on this.
Click to expand...
Oral arguments can be misleading but there are two ways that doesn’t happen:
1. They spent a lot of time on standing. Alito and Thomas would accept a dismissal on standing because it sets minimal precedent and keeps the issue alive for a different plaintiff.
2. 5 of them find it’s essentially meaningless verbiage.

It’s probably still a likely outcome but selling out for Kavanaugh could really backfire since he seems to be every bit the wretched statist bastard that I warned you all about.
 
#2,261
#2,261
RockyTop85 said:
Oral arguments can be misleading but there are two ways that doesn’t happen:
1. They spent a lot of time on standing. Alito and Thomas would accept a dismissal on standing because it sets minimal precedent and keeps the issue alive for a different plaintiff.
2. 5 of them find it’s essentially meaningless verbiage.

It’s probably still a likely outcome but selling out for Kavanaugh could really backfire since he seems to be every bit the wretched statist bastard that I warned you all about.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming it will be severed-but what exactly would change the law in actual practice with the tax penalty for the mandate already at $0?
 
#2,263
#2,263
Mulevol93 said:
I’m assuming it will be severed-but what exactly would change the law in actual practice with the tax penalty for the mandate already at $0?
Click to expand...

Depends on how the opinion is written.

I guess the court could overturn Sebelius and determine that the Mandate is unconstitutional regardless of the fine.

They could just strike the mandate as currently written but leave Sebelius in place. In that case, if Congress came back next week and passed a new mandate with a fine, it would fall back under Sebelius and be constitutional.
 
#2,265
#2,265
RockyTop85 said:
I am. Sorry for the unclear statement. They’re having oral arguments, presently.

I’m not sure I understand your statement. The plaintiffs are attempting to invalidate the entire ACA by arguing that a mandate with no penalty is unconstitutional. Whether a mandate enforced by a penalty is constitutional was previously decided in Sebilius. Declaring a no-penalty mandate unconstitutional without striking down the law accomplishes nothing substantive.
Click to expand...

So far the Court has stayed consistent. Honestly, I am a little surprised they bothered with the case. This is the most telling and probably the wisest quote.

" Roberts said simply that if Trump and Republicans wanted to kill the law, they could have done it."

Anybody come up with a constitutional argument to oppose state decisions on election results? Maybe, getting rid of pre-clearance was a dumb idea?
 
#2,267
#2,267
RockyTop85 said:
From the oral arguments so far, there may not be a single vote to overturn the ACA.

Barrett and Gorsuch haven’t really shown their hand that I can tell.

Thomas and Alito are hung up on standing.

Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kavanaugh all seem to think the mandate can be severed from the rest of the law.
Click to expand...
disregard
 
#2,271
#2,271
37L1 said:
That's a pretty big decision.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Those votes haven’t been counted yet and are likely to go for Biden, so it doesn’t change much in terms of Trump’s chance to win.

To me, it signals sort of the beginning of the end for Trump. The absurdity of Trump’s claims is underscored by the fact that he appointed 3 justices to a court with two diehard republicans and can’t get 4 votes to review this case.

Maybe they’ll treat the Michigan case differently, but apparently the 240 however many affidavits would only affect about 1000 votes and it seems to be more of an issue of fact than law, so I’m not sure they would take that either.

Trump’s only real hope is that the GA hand recount uncovers some sizeable discrepancy between the paper ballots and the electronic tabulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#2,272
#2,272


Man convicted of killing Texas teen becomes 8th federal execution of 2020

Hall was among five men convicted in the abduction and death of Lisa Rene in 1994.

According to federal court documents, Hall was a marijuana trafficker in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, who would sometimes buy drugs in the Dallas area. On Sept. 24, 1994, he met two men at a Dallas-area car wash and gave them $4,700 with the expectation they would return later with the marijuana. The two men were Rene’s brothers.

Instead, the men claimed their car and money were stolen. Hall and others figured they were lying and were able to track down the address of the brothers’ apartment in Arlington, Texas.

When Hall and three other men arrived, the brothers weren’t there. Lisa Rene was home, alone.

Court records offer a chilling account of the terror she faced.

“They’re trying to break down my door! Hurry up!” she told a 911 dispatcher. A muffled scream is heard seconds later, with a man saying, “Who you on the phone with?” The line then goes dead.

“She was studying for a test and had her textbooks on the couch when these guys came knocking on the front door,” retired Arlington detective John Stanton Sr. recalled. Police arrived within minutes of the 911 call, but the men were gone, with Rene. Stanton still winces at the near-miss of thwarting the crime in its early stages.

“It was one that I won’t ever forget,” Stanton said. “This one was particularly heinous.”

The men drove to a motel in Pine Bluff. Rene was repeatedly sexually assaulted during the drive and at the motel over the next two days.

On Sept. 26, Hall and two other men drove Rene to Byrd Lake Natural Area in Pine Bluff, her eyes covered by a mask. They led her to a grave site they had dug a day earlier. Hall placed a sheet over Rene’s head then hit her in the head with a shovel. When she ran another man and Hall took turns hitting her with the shovel before she was gagged and dragged into the grave, where she was doused in gasoline before dirt was shoveled over her.

A coroner determined that Rene was still alive when she was buried and died of asphyxiation in the grave, where she was found eight days later.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top