Author Topic: SCOTUS 2012: The Grand Finale (Read 50772 times)

trapeze · « **Reply #160 on:** June 25, 2012, 09:34:55 AM »

Quote from: IronDioPriest on June 25, 2012, 09:23:41 AM

At what point does an endless string of "bad weeks" become a "bad presidency" to these clowns?

Of course the irony is that it's been a bad three and half plus years for America, for liberty, etc.

I have to wonder if they are drawing out the O'BongoCare decision as a sort of revenge for the public insult he threw their way at the SOTU as regards Citizens United. There really is no technical reason to delay the annoucement...as in, they haven't finished writing the opinions or something...so it does make you wonder why there is no ruling today.

trapeze · « **Reply #161 on:** June 25, 2012, 09:41:25 AM »

Final word from the SCOTUS is that their next (and final) release will be on Thursday. So there you have it...three more days of excruciating anticipatory pain for President Zero.

IronDioPriest · « **Reply #162 on:** June 25, 2012, 09:43:10 AM »

I'm praying that the thing is struck down, or at least enough of it to make the rest unworkable - and that at least one of the liberal justices joins the majority. Unanimous would be about as poetic as justice could be.

IronDioPriest · « **Reply #163 on:** June 25, 2012, 09:44:58 AM »

I'd bet Zero already knows the outcome. The Leftist justices are committed Leftists - two of whom were appointed by the chimp. The idea that the decision has not been delivered to him already seems ludicrous to me.

trapeze · « **Reply #164 on:** June 25, 2012, 09:46:57 AM »

Rumor is that the O'BongoCare majority opinion is to be authored by Roberts with assistance from Kennedy. That, if true, does not sound like the law will be upheld...at least not in whole.

Libertas · « **Reply #165 on:** June 25, 2012, 09:47:00 AM »

AZ case - 3 parts struck down, check as part of unrelated action if reasonable suspicions is OK.

Gosh, I wonder what reasonable suspicions are.

The Supreme Court has issued 5-3 decision in favor of U.S. government, with Justice Kennedy saying that the government has significant power to regulate immigration and while Arizona may have signifacnt frustrations they may not have policies that undermine federal law.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/no-healthcare-ruling-today-scotus-rejects-parts-arizona-immigration-law-obama-defeat#comment-2557807

Kennedy! Statist bastard! Not a good omen for eliminating all of ObamaCare I'd say!

trapeze · « **Reply #166 on:** June 25, 2012, 09:59:39 AM »

Kagan will almost certainly vote to uphold. That she didn't recuse herself for O'BongoCare (but did for the AZ immigration case) is disgusting but hardly a surprise...she is, after all, an O'Bongo toady.

Kagan almost certainly has shoveled info directly to O'Bongo regarding the voting. That there has been no pre-emptive positive spin coming out of the WH is telling.

I am not sure that the wise Latina can be counted on to deliver for O'Bongo on this one. I'm probably wrong but I just have a feeling about it. Ginsburg and Breyer are ironclad reliable votes for all things leftist and extra Constitutional based on their stated opinions about foreign laws having legal consequences for us. So...I think there is a possibility (albeit slim) that O'BongoCare could be a 6-3 opinion. Much better chance of a 5-4 decision either way.

Libertas · « **Reply #167 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:05:28 AM »

It smells like 5-4 for only striking down the mandate to me and that still sucks! The whole damn thing should go, but it won't!

trapeze · « **Reply #168 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:06:41 AM »

Still left to rule on are the following (plus O'BongoCare, of course)

First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards
At Issue: Can a homebuyer sue a bank and title company if a kickback was paid to close a mortgage loan - and the homebuyer suffered no actual harm?

U.S. v. Alvarez
At issue: Whether the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it illegal to falsely represent oneself as a recipient of a medal by the Armed Forces, violates free speech.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (linked with Mohamad v. Rajoub)
At issue: Whether corporations can be held liable in the United States for human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners to sue for conduct outside the U.S.

Magner v. Gallagher
At issue: Can plaintiffs sue under the Fair Housing Act claiming they suffered discrimination on a “disparate impact” basis?

trapeze · « **Reply #169 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:10:26 AM »

Obligatory spin from Jan Brewer's spokesman:

Quote

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the
10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in
accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

“While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives
up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every
law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.

“The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona’s law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.

“Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.’”

trapeze · « **Reply #170 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:17:41 AM »

Here is one more possibility for Thursday and O'BongoCare...

It is entirely possible that O'BongoCare will be upheld (for now) because of "standing." That is, since the law has not gone into effect yet, no one has any standing to bring the case before the court...that is, no harm has yet occurred. I say this because one of the other four cases to be ruled upon on Thursday is First American Financial vs. Edwards where (just judging from the summary) there appears to be no harm inflicted.

Sure hope that guess is wrong.

EW1(SG) · « **Reply #171 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:32:31 AM »

Quote from: Libertas on June 25, 2012, 09:47:00 AM

AZ case - 3 parts struck down, check as part of unrelated action if reasonable suspicions is OK.

Gosh, I wonder what reasonable suspicions are.

The Supreme Court has issued 5-3 decision in favor of U.S. government, with Justice Kennedy saying that the government has significant power to regulate immigration and while Arizona may have signifacnt frustrations they may not have policies that undermine federal law.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/no-healthcare-ruling-today-scotus-rejects-parts-arizona-immigration-law-obama-defeat#comment-2557807

Kennedy! Statist bastard! Not a good omen for eliminating all of ObamaCare I'd say!

The Constitution is quite clear that the federal government reciprocally must not have policies that undermine the states.

AmericanPatriot · « **Reply #172 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:33:11 AM »

Trap, do you think the SCOTUS would have accepted the case now if the issue of standing were to come out?

Weisshaupt · « **Reply #173 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:34:44 AM »

Undermine? My providing stiffer penalties than what Fedaral Law already provides?

Oh undermining polices- like the current administration's policy to NOT UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES .. Didn't he take an oath? Oh right. It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

trapeze · « **Reply #174 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:34:59 AM »

Quote from: AmericanPatriot on June 25, 2012, 10:33:11 AM

Trap, do you think the SCOTUS would have accepted the case now if the issue of standing were to come out?

I think they had to accept it because it was in the lower courts and was ruled upon over non-standing issues. I'm no legal beagle so my opinion (more of a guess) is worthless.

Weisshaupt · « **Reply #175 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:37:03 AM »

Quote from: trapeze on June 25, 2012, 10:17:41 AM

Here is one more possibility for Thursday and O'BongoCare...

It is entirely possible that O'BongoCare will be upheld (for now) because of "standing." That is, since the law has not gone into effect yet, no one has any standing to bring the case before the court...that is, no harm has yet occurred. I say this because one of the other four cases to be ruled upon on Thursday is First American Financial vs. Edwards where (just judging from the summary) there appears to be no harm inflicted.

Sure hope that guess is wrong.

I guarantee there will be harm if it goes into effect. I will either kill the person trying to enforce it on me, or they will kill me. Give me Liberty of Give me Death .

trapeze · « **Reply #176 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:39:29 AM »

It would push this into next year's SCOTUS session. Again. So on the one hand I can see it being deferred until someone has suffered actual harm but on the other hand I can see the SCOTUS not wanting to go through this mess again...why bother with a dry run this year?

trapeze · « **Reply #177 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:44:30 AM »

From the political point of view, today's ruling allows O'Bongo to spin this as a victory of sorts. Of course, the thinking portion of the electorate will not be fooled but that isn't his target voting block these days. I think you can count on him doing some kind of victory dance, though.

Weisshaupt · « **Reply #178 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:54:05 AM »

Quote from: trapeze on June 25, 2012, 10:39:29 AM

It would push this into next year's SCOTUS session. Again. So on the one hand I can see it being deferred until someone has suffered actual harm but on the other hand I can see the SCOTUS not wanting to go through this mess again...why bother with a dry run this year?

If they panned to make it a dry run, I can't see them taking this long to make a decision either. Of course, it does boost their ratings as it were. as FrankJ at IMAO.us said: "I just hope SCOTUS tells us soon. Come on, you jerks, this is the only decision we care about. Of course, they’ll announce it last to force us to pay attention to all their other decisions. Bunch of jerks."

charlesoakwood · « **Reply #179 on:** June 25, 2012, 10:58:10 AM »

Quote from: trapeze on June 25, 2012, 10:39:29 AM

It would push this into next year's SCOTUS session. Again. So on the one hand I can see it being deferred until someone has suffered actual harm but on the other hand I can see the SCOTUS not wanting to go through this mess again...why bother with a dry run this year?

SCOTUS is the most respected branch of government if they kick this down the road to next year much frustration that has been cast to the other two will be intensified and redirected to them. They should know this.

Author Topic: SCOTUS 2012: The Grand Finale (Read 50772 times)

charlesoakwood