If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   In a sign of what's to come, Justice Scalia suddenly decides he doesn't like the legal precedent that makes Obamacare constitutional   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 198
    More: Obvious, Scalia, obamacare, constitutionality, UCLA School of Law, Commerce Clause, healthcare reform, federalisms, Supreme Court decisions  
•       •       •

5412 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2012 at 12:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



198 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-18 11:24:26 AM
Big sigh. How can someone of such authority be so dishonest?
 
2012-06-18 11:31:31 AM
Paragraph best summarizing whole article:

"I have always had the impression that Justice Scalia's primary approach to judging is political," Tim Jost, a professor of law at Washington and Lee University, told TPM. "Therefore, he will interpret the Commerce Clause broadly to support federal laws he likes but narrowly to strike down those he doesn't."
 
2012-06-18 11:32:48 AM

mrshowrules: Paragraph best summarizing whole article:

"I have always had the impression that Justice Scalia's primary approach to judging is political," Tim Jost, a professor of law at Washington and Lee University, told TPM. "Therefore, he will interpret the Commerce Clause broadly to support federal laws he likes but narrowly to strike down those he doesn't."


Obvious tag... right where it belongs.
 
2012-06-18 11:35:13 AM

JusticeandIndependence: Big sigh. How can someone of such authority be so dishonest?


He's a Republican. It's what they do.
 
2012-06-18 11:36:33 AM
I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.
 
2012-06-18 11:47:38 AM
If he was born 400 years ago Antonin would have fit right in as one of the Medici or Borgia family style Popes. You know the ones with secret mistresses, private assasains and encouraged indulgences.
 
2012-06-18 11:48:15 AM
Scalia will do whatever the hell he pleases. He doesn't fundamentally give a rat's ass about the Constitution. If he did, we might get the Fourth Amendment back.
 
2012-06-18 11:48:27 AM

Vodka Zombie: I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.


It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.
 
2012-06-18 11:59:35 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.


Could not disagree more, I think this would lead to even more politicization. If anything I think congress should get to nominate 10 people, the president gets 10 nominees and 10 more names get pulled from the ranks of all federal judges with excellent ratings from the American Bar. They get put in a tumbler and we draw a name at random.
 
2012-06-18 12:04:30 PM

NuttierThanEver: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

Could not disagree more, I think this would lead to even more politicization. If anything I think congress should get to nominate 10 people, the president gets 10 nominees and 10 more names get pulled from the ranks of all federal judges with excellent ratings from the American Bar. They get put in a tumbler and we draw a name at random.


Don't draw names have a Spelling Bee/elimination type quiz on American and Constitutional Law.
 
2012-06-18 12:18:53 PM
Scalia has been critical of Wickard v. Filburn since long before "Obamacare" was a sparkle in Obama's eye.
 
2012-06-18 12:29:03 PM
Wonder how much he's made off of this?

/we need to amend the Constitution to end that appointment for life crap
 
2012-06-18 12:29:50 PM

kronicfeld: Scalia has been critical of Wickard v. Filburn since long before "Obamacare" was a sparkle in Obama's eye.


Do you have an example? Seriously.
 
2012-06-18 12:40:17 PM

kronicfeld: Scalia has been critical of Wickard v. Filburn since long before "Obamacare" was a sparkle in Obama's eye.


On matters such as these...or NFL contract negotiations, I defer to Kronicfeld.
 
2012-06-18 12:48:20 PM

JusticeandIndependence: Big sigh. How can someone of such authority be so dishonest?


Golf clap.
 
2012-06-18 12:48:34 PM
One thing is certain: Death
How we get there and how fast depends on our genetics, environment and what we do to slow it.
Health Care covers the slowing down part.
While I like the idea of freedom and not forcing people to buy something they don't want, death doesn't give a shiat.
Everyone will need health care at some point.
 
2012-06-18 12:49:44 PM

Vodka Zombie: I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.


I believe you, but I haven't been able to figure it out. By what mechanism is this happening? I don't see these retired lawyers living especially high on the hog (for a retired lawyer).
 
2012-06-18 12:50:43 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.


WTF dinner parties? Idiot.
 
2012-06-18 12:57:53 PM
I kinda want to see Obamacare get overturned but not because I don't like it, I want to see the faces of those who decried how bad it was while simultaneously getting effed up the 'b' when they lose their health care coverage.


/vagina
 
2012-06-18 12:58:26 PM
You know what? fark it, strike it down. Leave us with nowhere to go but public option. I dare you.
 
2012-06-18 12:59:36 PM
No HERO tag?
Come on subby.

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?
 
2012-06-18 01:00:02 PM

kronicfeld: Scalia has been critical of Wickard v. Filburn since long before "Obamacare" was a sparkle in Obama's eye.


Seriously? He basically used Wickard v. Filburn as the sole precedent for his concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich upholding the Controlled Substances Act.
 
2012-06-18 01:00:32 PM

Guidette Frankentits: I kinda want to see Obamacare get overturned but not because I don't like it, I want to see the faces of those who decried how bad it was while simultaneously getting effed up the 'b' when they lose their health care coverage.


/vagina


They will blame Obama anyway. We are talking about people who think politics should be ceded to those people who wear the most American flags are are the most dedicated revolutionary war cosplayers.
 
2012-06-18 01:00:41 PM

JusticeandIndependence: Big sigh. How can someone of such authority be so dishonest?


I'm sorry are you refering to his generally deluded and disembling nature or the fact that he and Clarence Thomas are openly taking bribes? For what it's worth, this has long been a problem with republican nominated supreme court justices.
 
2012-06-18 01:01:19 PM

HeartBurnKid: You know what? fark it, strike it down. Leave us with nowhere to go but public option. I dare you.


There's always the "let the poor die in the streets" option. That's attractive because it reduces dependence on social services, reduces the gap in minority employment/academia, provides plenty of jobs in the sanitation/disposal/biofuel industries, and frees up blighted urban areas for redevelopment.
 
2012-06-18 01:01:52 PM
Oh, the comments....

John Lee Johnson · Subscribe · Currently waiting for assignment at WSI

The only RATS are the DemocRATS and we will make sure they will NEVER again have the White House or a Majority on the SCOTUS and Congress. It will be ILLEGAL to be a SOCIALIST SCUM DemocRAT after we are done with you.
Reply · Like · 11 minutes ago


Oh look, it's the same guy...

John Lee Johnson · Subscribe · Currently waiting for assignment at WSI

YOU DemocRATS are the real criminals, can't wait until next year when President Romney will round most of you up and throw you in the camps for destroying our country. I'll be RIGHT there throwing the Cyklon-B into your showers, you GODLESS SOCIALIST BABYKILLING SCUM
Reply · Like · 8 minutes ago
 
2012-06-18 01:02:08 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: No HERO tag?
Come on subby.

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?


Why did he agree with that precedent in his concurring opinion on Gonzales v. Raich?
 
2012-06-18 01:02:09 PM
I am shocked, SHOCKED that Justice Scalia would completely change his interpretation of the law based on current political beliefs.

Shocked I tell you. Just shocked.

And since Thomas is just his ventriloquist dummy we can assume feels the same as Scalia.
 
2012-06-18 01:02:10 PM
If the Court rigidly stood by stare decisis, "separate but equal" would still be the law of the land. And Justices sometimes change their own minds. Hugo Black deeply regretted voting in favor of the US on the issue of internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII in the Koramatsu case. Rigid adherence to some ideological concept or rigid adherence to one's own opinions come hell or high water may be de rigeur in the Politics tab, but that's not always the case with judges.
 
2012-06-18 01:02:42 PM
In Scalia's new book, a 500-page disquisition on statutory construction being published this week,

I do not recommend buying this book. Mrs. PCoC decided she wanted some statutory for our garden, you know, like a statue of George Washington and maybe some Greeks and shiat like that. Class the place up. I bought this book 'cause I thought I could save a few bucks by making my own out of concrete or something instead of buying that expensive marble shiat from one of those lawn statutory stores. Anyway, I'm like 300 pages in and this doofus is still talking about court cases and I still haven't learned shiat about constructing statutory.
 
2012-06-18 01:02:48 PM

Wangiss: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

WTF dinner parties? Idiot.


You got a point, sunshine?
 
2012-06-18 01:02:54 PM

ps69: They will blame Obama anyway. We are talking about people who think politics should be ceded to those people who wear the most American flags are are the most dedicated revolutionary war cosplayers.


While that's a totally what they'll do, they jokes on them since they'll lose health insurance.


/vagina
 
2012-06-18 01:05:17 PM

Brandyelf: Oh, the comments....

John Lee Johnson · Subscribe · Currently waiting for assignment at WSI

The only RATS are the DemocRATS and we will make sure they will NEVER again have the White House or a Majority on the SCOTUS and Congress. It will be ILLEGAL to be a SOCIALIST SCUM DemocRAT after we are done with you.
Reply · Like · 11 minutes ago

Oh look, it's the same guy...

John Lee Johnson · Subscribe · Currently waiting for assignment at WSI

YOU DemocRATS are the real criminals, can't wait until next year when President Romney will round most of you up and throw you in the camps for destroying our country. I'll be RIGHT there throwing the Cyklon-B into your showers, you GODLESS SOCIALIST BABYKILLING SCUM
Reply · Like · 8 minutes ago


Obvious trolling of TPM is obvious.
 
2012-06-18 01:05:57 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Wonder how much he's made off of this?

/we need to amend the Constitution to end that appointment for life crap


The lifetime appointment to SCOTUS was intended to put the judges above the
political process. The framer's thinking was that if they were appointed for life
they would be more fair-minded in deciding issues than if they were directly
elected or had a term of service.

In the main, this is probably been a good strategy: there is a great tradition of
judges being put on the SCOTUS breaking their previous patterns (ISTR that
Earl Warren was a conservative before his appointment, but turned out to be
one of the most progressive judges in history). Unfortunately, the lifetime
appointment also means that party hacks like Scalia and Thomas also get in.

This court, though, has to be the most politicized court since at least before
the Civil War, and the conservative water carriers aren't anywhere near done
with their damage.
 
2012-06-18 01:06:06 PM

timswar: I am shocked, SHOCKED that Justice Scalia would completely change his interpretation of the law based on current political beliefs.

Shocked I tell you. Just shocked.

And since Thomas is just his ventriloquist dummy we can assume feels the same as Scalia.


To be fair, Thomas has consistently held pre-Wickard views of what the Commerce Clause authorizes; see his concurrences in US v. Lopez, US v. Morrison, and Gonzales v. Raich that all condemned current interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
 
2012-06-18 01:06:28 PM

BeesNuts: Wangiss: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

WTF dinner parties? Idiot.

You got a point, sunshine?


Other than the one at the top of my head? No.
 
2012-06-18 01:06:49 PM
Can someone explain to me how a sitting Supreme Court justice selling a book in which he lays out his opinion of laws that will impact his decision in a current case wouldn't be a conflict of interest?
 
2012-06-18 01:07:31 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: No HERO tag?
Come on subby.

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?


He thinks it's overreach when he doesn't like where it reaches. Right into our bedrooms, classrooms, dining rooms, wallets? No such thing as overreach. Commerce Clause is BROAD! fark with the REAL money and suddenly any reach is a bridge too far.

That's what really makes Scalia so detestable. His legal arguments are airtight because they are tautological and based in a body of law that he himself helped form the better part of. Our Supreme Court can now "debate" even fundamental questions about our constitution. There's "precedent" for anything.

And when they don't want to set precedent? They just say that the case is unique and not to be used elsewhere, like Bush v Gore.

History will remember this supreme court as one of the most confusing, inconsistent, and likely corrupt, courts in our history.
 
2012-06-18 01:07:33 PM
Translation: Scalia isn't buying the liberal talking point and is instead actually making a decision based on the Constitution.
 
2012-06-18 01:07:39 PM
There's really only 2 mutually exclusive views on HCR. You either believe that everybody is inherently part of the health care system or you don't.

If you do believe that everybody is using some level of health at all times, there is no way to truly opt out because you will be treated if you get hit by a bus, regardless of whether you have health care.

If you don't believe that people are a part of the health care system at all times, then it should be a moral and legal imperative to stop treating people without health care.

We can't have it both ways, where we treat everyone while charging only some. You either charge everyone and treat everyone or charge some and treat some.
 
2012-06-18 01:07:41 PM

Sliding Carp: JusticeandIndependence: Big sigh. How can someone of such authority be so dishonest?

He's a Republican. It's what they do.


Go troll some place else.
 
2012-06-18 01:07:49 PM

Serious Black: timswar: I am shocked, SHOCKED that Justice Scalia would completely change his interpretation of the law based on current political beliefs.

Shocked I tell you. Just shocked.

And since Thomas is just his ventriloquist dummy we can assume feels the same as Scalia.

To be fair, Thomas has consistently held pre-Wickard views of what the Commerce Clause authorizes; see his concurrences in US v. Lopez, US v. Morrison, and his dissent in Gonzales v. Raich that all condemned current interpretation of the Commerce Clause.


FTFM.
 
2012-06-18 01:08:59 PM
apoptotic

Can someone explain to me how a sitting Supreme Court justice selling a book in which he lays out his opinion of laws that will impact his decision in a current case wouldn't be a conflict of interest?



It's called Above the Law. A lot of people think they are - only a select few really are.
 
2012-06-18 01:09:07 PM
If the court does overturn the mandate, it's going to be hard to know how to react. It's been more than 75 years since the Supreme Court overturned a piece of legislation as big as ACA, and I can't think of any example of the court overturning landmark legislation this big based on a principle as flimsy and manufactured as activity vs. inactivity. When the court overturned the NRA in 1935, it was a shock - but it was also a unanimous decision and, despite FDR's pique, not really a surprising ruling given existing precedent. Overturning ACA would be a whole different kind of game changer. It would mean that the Supreme Court had officially entered an era where they were frankly willing to overturn liberal legislation just because they don't like it. Pile that on top of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United and you have a Supreme Court that's pretty explicitly chosen up sides in American electoral politics. This would be, in no uncertain terms, no longer business as usual. Link
 
2012-06-18 01:09:30 PM

Serious Black: tenpoundsofcheese: No HERO tag?
Come on subby.

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?

Why did he agree with that precedent in his concurring opinion on Gonzales v. Raich?


ftfa: "I'm not sure there is any inconsistency between citing a decision in an opinion and thinking the decision was wrong; Justice Scalia does believe in stare decisis."

vs. others who don't seem to believe in stare decisis.
 
2012-06-18 01:09:50 PM

Nabb1: If the Court rigidly stood by stare decisis, "separate but equal" would still be the law of the land. And Justices sometimes change their own minds. Hugo Black deeply regretted voting in favor of the US on the issue of internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII in the Koramatsu case. Rigid adherence to some ideological concept or rigid adherence to one's own opinions come hell or high water may be de rigeur in the Politics tab, but that's not always the case with judges.


You would make a good Scalia.
 
2012-06-18 01:10:21 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: In Scalia's new book, a 500-page disquisition on statutory construction being published this week,

I do not recommend buying this book. Mrs. PCoC decided she wanted some statutory for our garden, you know, like a statue of George Washington and maybe some Greeks and shiat like that. Class the place up. I bought this book 'cause I thought I could save a few bucks by making my own out of concrete or something instead of buying that expensive marble shiat from one of those lawn statutory stores. Anyway, I'm like 300 pages in and this doofus is still talking about court cases and I still haven't learned shiat about constructing statutory.


www.whosawesome.com
 
2012-06-18 01:10:38 PM
BeesNuts

tenpoundsofcheese: No HERO tag?
Come on subby.

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?

He thinks it's overreach when he doesn't like where it reaches. Right into our bedrooms, classrooms, dining rooms, wallets? No such thing as overreach. Commerce Clause is BROAD! fark with the REAL money and suddenly any reach is a bridge too far.

That's what really makes Scalia so detestable. His legal arguments are airtight because they are tautological and based in a body of law that he himself helped form the better part of. Our Supreme Court can now "debate" even fundamental questions about our constitution. There's "precedent" for anything.

And when they don't want to set precedent? They just say that the case is unique and not to be used elsewhere, like Bush v Gore.

History will remember this supreme court as one of the most confusing, inconsistent, and likely corrupt, courts in our history.



Which goes perfectly with our current administration.
 
2012-06-18 01:10:42 PM

kronicfeld: Scalia has been critical of Wickard v. Filburn since long before "Obamacare" was a sparkle in Obama'sRomney's eye.


FTFY
 
2012-06-18 01:11:32 PM

randomjsa: Translation: Scalia isn't buying the liberal talking point and is instead actually making a decision based on the Constitution.


Question: why did he sign onto the majority opinion that endorsed the Lopez test and issue his own concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich where he outright stated "Where Congress has authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective"? He's had 17 years to decide that Wickard v. Filburn was incorrectly decided, and he endorsed the precedent in that case at every single opportunity up till now.
 
Displayed 50 of 198 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report