Examples of unusual divides on the Supreme Court (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 04:53:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Examples of unusual divides on the Supreme Court (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Examples of unusual divides on the Supreme Court  (Read 2983 times)
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,190
United States


« on: February 05, 2017, 03:06:00 PM »

Granville v. Troxel.
The case was about whether a parent has a constitutional right to control who else has visitation rights to their child. The Court divided six to three; Rehnquist, O'Connor, White, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter versus Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,190
United States


« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2017, 03:13:50 PM »
« Edited: February 12, 2017, 02:40:36 PM by MarkD »

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius famously had Roberts joining the liberals as the swing vote instead of Kennedy.

I dont mean to go off-topic but has anyone figured out why Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare?
I've always assumed that Roberts strain a legal gnat to justify upholding the ACA so as to avoid getting the Court embroiled in the politics of the ACA.

I disagree. Roberts got the law exactly right on this one. Yes, not getting out of bed in the morning is not an engagement in interstate commerce, but the mandate fee really is a tax for Constitutional purposes (the economic effect is precisely the same as a tax), even if it is not if Congress so chooses for statutory purposes, to avoid certain statutory procedural hurdles. It really is a quite brilliant decision.

I wish I were more familiar with all of the details and nuances of the case, but my instincts are that Roberts had the right conclusion but the wrong explanation of the Constitution. It makes no sense to me to call the confiscation of money from a person who did not comply with a law a "tax." If a law requires you to do a certain something (get health care insurance) and penalizes you for not doing it, then that's a fine, not a tax. Taxes are what you have to pay even if you are not accused of doing anything against the law. I think the Affordable Care Act should have been upheld, in its entirety, under the Commerce Clause.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 12 queries.