SCOTUS opinion watch

[Classic Conservative]

Court is interpretating the section of ObamaCare as the 'state' not 'states'

[Torie]

Court is interpretating the section of ObamaCare as the 'state' not 'states'

Interesting, with presumably "state" meaning government (state and federal, as in "ship of state"), in contradistinction to "states," meaning those 50 pesky little governmental entities scattered across the Fruited Plain. Man, Roberts is good.  Obamacare should be "renamed" out there on in the public square as "Robertscare, not "SCOTUScare," as Scalia wants. Roberts deserves all the credit himself for saving its ass - twice now - and in most creative ways, that did not create precedents with which the liberals could wreck more mischief later in other contexts.

[traininthedistance]

Texas Housing case, written by Kennedy as expected. Kennedy in 5-4 decision joins the liberals. This is unexpected. The lower court is affirmed, and housing discrimination is an objective test. One looks to impact, not intent. So the next 2 or 3 opinions come from either Kennedy, Scalia or Roberts.

I know that this case isn't getting much attention, what with Obamacare hogging the limelight and all, but I for one am surprised and very pleased to see SCOTUS defend the principle of fair housing.

[jaichind]

The Texas Housing case decision is highly disappointing.   Not surprising but very disappointing. 

[Torie]

Texas Housing case, written by Kennedy as expected. Kennedy in 5-4 decision joins the liberals. This is unexpected. The lower court is affirmed, and housing discrimination is an objective test. One looks to impact, not intent. So the next 2 or 3 opinions come from either Kennedy, Scalia or Roberts.

I know that this case isn't getting much attention, what with Obamacare hogging the limelight and all, but I for one am surprised and very pleased to see SCOTUS defend the principle of fair housing.

This particular DINO agrees with you. There should be zero tolerance when it comes to housing discrimination - Z-E-R-O.

[Classic Conservative]

SCOTUS blog believes Scalia will write Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency. They think this beacuse Scalia didn't write an opinion in that month and it's the only case left for the month.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If I understand Torie's analysis, Roberts' interpretation might be even better for the law's prospects than expected. If the majority opinion had been based on administrative interpretation, that would have meant that a Republican President could have reversed the policy at any time, and removed subsidies from federally run exchanges. Here, if I read it correctly, the SCOTUS is essentially saying that "subsidies for all" is the only valid interpretation. Fantastic news!

Also, it's great to see a ruling favorable to anti-discrimination policies. This court session is turning out pretty good so far.

[Torie]

If I understand Torie's analysis, Roberts' interpretation might be even better for the law's prospects than expected. If the majority opinion had been based on administrative interpretation, that would have meant that a Republican President could have reversed the policy at any time, and removed subsidies from federally run exchanges. Here, if I read it correctly, the SCOTUS is essentially saying that "subsidies for all" is the only valid interpretation. Fantastic news!

Also, it's great to see a ruling favorable to anti-discrimination policies. This court session is turning out pretty good so far.

Good point.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Texas Housing case, written by Kennedy as expected. Kennedy in 5-4 decision joins the liberals. This is unexpected. The lower court is affirmed, and housing discrimination is an objective test. One looks to impact, not intent. So the next 2 or 3 opinions come from either Kennedy, Scalia or Roberts.

I know that this case isn't getting much attention, what with Obamacare hogging the limelight and all, but I for one am surprised and very pleased to see SCOTUS defend the principle of fair housing.

This particular DINO agrees with you. There should be zero tolerance when it comes to housing discrimination - Z-E-R-O.

It is not a question of tolerating housing discrimination. It is a question of if you assume an intent based only on a result.

[Torie]

Texas Housing case, written by Kennedy as expected. Kennedy in 5-4 decision joins the liberals. This is unexpected. The lower court is affirmed, and housing discrimination is an objective test. One looks to impact, not intent. So the next 2 or 3 opinions come from either Kennedy, Scalia or Roberts.

I know that this case isn't getting much attention, what with Obamacare hogging the limelight and all, but I for one am surprised and very pleased to see SCOTUS defend the principle of fair housing.

This particular DINO agrees with you. There should be zero tolerance when it comes to housing discrimination - Z-E-R-O.

It is not a question of tolerating housing discrimination. It is a question of if you assume an intent based only on a result.

Fair enough. But given that intent is often hard to prove, the effect of a subjective test in lieu of an objective effects test, is that there will be more housing discrimination, and in that sense it's being "tolerated" more than otherwise necessary, as opposed to doing all things reasonably necessary to stamp it out. Obviously, good jurisprudence would insist that there is a textual basis for going the objective route, or at least that the text is susceptible to such an interpretation. But in my view, it is the right policy.

[muon2]

Perhaps Scalia's dissent effectively morphs Pelosi's famous quote from "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," to "But we have to pass the bill so that SCOTUS can tell us what is in it."

[The Dowager Mod]

My crazy tea party relatives are saying Roberts was blackmailed into his decision.

[Torie]

My crazy tea party relatives are saying Roberts was blackmailed into his decision.

What is he hiding in their minds?

[The Dowager Mod]

My crazy tea party relatives are saying Roberts was blackmailed into his decision.

What is he hiding in their minds?

I refuse to click the links, so I don't know exactly.

This is the one I got on Facebook though, feel free.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So are there going to be any more court cases about SCOTUScare?

[muon2]

My crazy tea party relatives are saying Roberts was blackmailed into his decision.

What is he hiding in their minds?

I refuse to click the links, so I don't know exactly.

This is the one I got on Facebook though, feel free.

It looks like fairly standard conspiracy thoughts - conservatives hate Obamacare, conservatives have a court majority, Roberts is a conservative, Obama's agencies control all sorts of secrets on DC higher ups, Obamacare survives. Conclusion - Obama's agencies must have secrets on Roberts to force his hand.

[Thomas D]

I'm off work Monday & Tuesday. So if SCOTUS could hold off on SSM tomorrow that would be fab.

[Skill and Chance]

So if it is Ginsburg writing AZ redistricting, that still leaves the question quite open as to whether she would be writing a 5/4 for the commission or a 7/2 against it (perhaps with remarks that would also explicitly take down CA)?  It's kind of an open question which is the left or right wing position on this case (especially when you consider that Kennedy is from CA).  Democrats might actually prefer a broad ruling against the commission that lets them go Maryland on NJ, NY and WA in 2021 whereas Republicans may be very worried about CA.     

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So if it is Ginsburg writing AZ redistricting, that still leaves the question quite open as to whether she would be writing a 5/4 for the commission or a 7/2 against it (perhaps with remarks that would also explicitly take down CA)?  It's kind of an open question which is the left or right wing position on this case (especially when you consider that Kennedy is from CA).  Democrats might actually prefer a broad ruling against the commission that lets them go Maryland on NJ, NY and WA in 2021 whereas Republicans may be very worried about CA.     

Uh, the NY proposal for 2020 was endorsed by two consecutive legislatures (the 10-12 one and the 12-14 one, and it was approved by both houses, not just the closely divided senate), so it doesn't look like the Democrats there want to gerrymander the state.

[Ebsy]

So are there going to be any more court cases about SCOTUScare?

Hopefully conservatives will realize it is a waste of everyone's time and money.

[The Other Castro]

Prediction: Tomorrow is lethal injection+redistricting+other minor case
Monday is other minor case+same sex marriage

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Words no longer have meaning" - Scalia

So why is he still using them?

[muon2]

ScotusBlog just announced four boxes today.

[The Other Castro]

ScotusBlog just announced four boxes today.

Wow. 4 today and marriage on Monday maybe?

[Torie]

Here we go again. SSM, AZ Commission, EPA regulatory standards as to whether costs have been adequately taken into account, lethal injection, armed career criminal act (Johnson). The speculation is that Scalia will say costs matter as to the EPA case, lethal injection held Constitutional, and Johnson is supposed to be a no brainer (I am not sure which way, and really don't know that case), and then SSM and AZ commission, with which we are all familiar.

And we have ... SSM! Kennedy. 14th amendment requires a state to "recognize" a marriage that was performed out of state. So it is a narrow decision as I expected, but Roberts does not sign on, which is unexpected to me. It's a 5-4 decision, usual block. Each of the 4 dissenting judges wrote their own dissent. the opinion is not in a booklet form, either because it was too thick and/or it was finished too recently. Addendum: Scotusblog was wrong - the decision held that states must both license in state, and recognize out of state SSM. So the holding is not narrow, and all my narrow chatter herein should be ignored! The text of the decision is here. The syllabus states: "Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28." (Emphasis added.)

Scotusblog writes: "We are still scanning the opinion to see whether it announces a standard of scrutiny, but it's clear that the Court's opinion relies on the dual rationales of fundamental rights AND equal protection. We'll update more re: the equal protection reasoning as soon as we finish reading." "The opinion seems to go out of its way not to state a standard of scrutiny. Instead, it says, "It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality . . . Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry." That's page 22."  

Decision is not as narrow as I assumed per the ruling focusing on recognizing out of state marriages, as opposed to all states having to license them in-state.

Roberts is reading his dissent, and the blog says: "Chief Justice is now reading from his dissent. It is the first time he has ever read a dissent from the bench, according to Lyle (who knows these things)."
Roberts writes: " "If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Majority opinion states:  "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. ... [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."  Again broad language for oddly narrow opinion.

And "The majority bases its conclusion that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right on "four principles and traditions": (1) right to person choice in marriage is "inherent in the concept of individual autonomy"; (2) "two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals"; (3) marriage safeguards children and families; (4) marriage is a keystone to our social order."

And it's a living Constitution! "The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a character protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning."
Very broad, and Scalia must be apoplectic. And the blog says the dissents are indeed, "strident."

This case must be setting a record for announcement time as to how much time the Justices are consuming talking about it. Roberts still reading his dissent, as he has been doing for at least 10 minutes. Very unusual.  

One more box left. SSM took up three boxes all by itself! My oh my.

4 decisions left, and not more than two in the one box, so at least 2 decisions will wait until Monday.

Johnson. Scalia. 8-1 decision. Court holds that imposing an increased sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause violates due process. ACCA residual clause is unconstitutional, but that aspect was 6-3. Alito is the lone dissenter in the ruling. Thomas writes separate concurring opinion, joined by Kennedy. Alito is kind of a hard-ass isn't he?

That's it. So AZ Commission, lethal injection and EPA regulatory standard case (the latter is a huge one economically, far more important really arguably than the one we fixated on, AZ commision), await until Monday.

Until Monday then. You boys enjoy my nattering here?