Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

Its goinig to be 5-4 with Roberts. Kennedy will side with the others. Maybe within six years we will finally replace scalia and kennedy.

 

[PhoenixDark]

5-4 for King. Bet on it.

 

[Crisco]

Look, either way, the Republicans lose. Obviously if SCOTUS rule for the government, they lose. If they don't, then Obama goes,

and they still lose.

 

[Jack Remington]

To be honest, some of what she is saying sounds good.

I just have absolutely zero faith in them to follow through.

"Sure, we won't block those with pre-existing conditions...you'll just have to pay 100 times what others do!"

It's basically: "To reform the healthcare system we're going to reform the healthcare system! We're going to make sure all voices are heard! We're going to make the tough, but pragmatic choices! We're going to lower costs! We're going to do a bunch of stuff that the ACA already does! Insurers will be able to sell across state lines!"

 

[Diablos]

Reading King's latest comments make me want to rage.

If he wins, Mr. King said, “the left will blow it out of proportion and claim that eight million people will lose their health insurance.” But he said lawyers had assured him that “things are in play to take care of the problem.”

Yeah, what? A grace period? Or grandfathering those plans and shutting out everyone else? THAT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

Mr. King said that although he did not attend the arguments on the case in early March, he had listened to the audio. “A lot of the Supreme Court seemed to be in our favor,” he said, and he offered contrasting impressions of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“I thought Roberts was supportive,” Mr. King said. “Ginsburg was not. She is far left.”

Wow, expert analysis there bro.

Also, Roberts seemed to imply that he may very well support (per se) the administration here, by deferring to the executive... which could change parties depending on how 2016 goes. That is not exactly supportive, it's neutral by deferring to the executive branch which can change, fundamentally, over time.

 

[sc0la]

Did trump legit say Mexico was sending its rapists here? What an insufferable prick.

 

[Diablos]

Its goinig to be 5-4 with Roberts. Kennedy will side with the others. Maybe within six years we will finally replace scalia and kennedy.

How about tomorrow -- at least for Scalia, get the fuck off the court you bitter old senile troll!

 

[Plinko]

Look, either way, the Republicans lose. Obviously if SCOTUS rule for the government, they lose. If they don't, then Obama goes,

and they still lose.

Nope. People are dumb. Republicans will blame Obama, people will believe them.

 

[Diablos]

No one in here is feeling too confident about the ruling, it seems.

 

[HylianTom]

No one in here is feeling too confident about the ruling, it seems.

I'm not the least bit confident. Neither outcome would shock me.

 

[kingkitty]

I read the tea leaves and it said 5-4 against Obama.

I hope dems can win on messaging but I dunno.

 

[Diablos]

I read the tea leaves and it said 5-4 against Obama.

I hope dems can win on messaging but I dunno.

I read the tea leaves and they didn't say much one way or the other.

Kennedy seemed to give us some hope, that was about it. He seemed to imply that if the plaintiffs are genuinely right, then the ACA intentionally meant to strip subsidies away from people who are already receiving them via something the Obama's administration is directly responsible for overseeing, the federal exchange, forcing health insurance markets into collapse.

Roberts was so quiet, you can't read too much into what he said.

The rest was basically the four liberals beating the plantiffs' arguement over the head (and rightfully so), and Scalia being the Fox News Justice™.

Alito might have given Roberts and Kennedy a lifeline by supporting the idea of a grace period... they may not have to go to the left this time because, in their view, Alito's point of view isn't too extreme for them.

Either Kennedy is going to save the day (and possibly bring Roberts with him) or Alito will bring both him and Roberts back to the dark side. I think that's how it will play out. Scalia likely had nothing constructive to offer behind closed doors, and Thomas probably didn't give a fuck either, he made up his mind eons ago.

 

[Jack Remington]

No one in here is feeling too confident about the ruling, it seems.

I'm pretty confident actually.

 

[Grexeno]

I just can't see both Roberts and Kennedy ruling for King.

 

[Diablos]

I just can't see both Roberts and Kennedy ruling for King.

Why not? They're, like, the Reagan bros.

 

[thepotatoman]

If true, I'd think that bodes well for the government. The last few years the Court has dropped its most controversial opinions at the very end, then scattered to their various downtime activities. If they voted to disallow the subsidies (which I imagine would result in the most backlash), I think they'd hold the opinions until the last day--or at least the last week.

Not just the last few years. It's apparently a mathematical trend going back to at least 1946, according to a duke law study.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/..._out_all_over_with_big_time_scotus_decisions?

But we are on the second to last week, and they do like to space out big opinions so that journalists and the public have time to digest them. With both ACA subsidies and gay marriage being so big, I'd imagine they'd have to put one of those two out there really soon.

 

[Diablos]

If true, I'd think that bodes well for the government. The last few years the Court has dropped its most controversial opinions at the very end, then scattered to their various downtime activities. If they voted to disallow the subsidies (which I imagine would result in the most backlash), I think they'd hold the opinions until the last day--or at least the last week.

Except there's also the gay marriage ruling among other things. They have to space them out. It just might be a sense of logistics dictating when the ruling has to come down. Like thepotatoman said, we're near the end anyway... so it might not even matter. But certainly a gap in between ACA and gay marriage is likely so that both can be digested. They're both big cases so, in a sense, we are already at the end.

On the other hand a ruling in favor of gay marriage is pretty controversial for the USA, so you might have a point... but my gut tells me that because there are back to back huge opinions coming down the line, it's really just logistics more than anything else, because both will need ample time on the news no matter how the court rules.

 

[B-Dubs]

Except there's also the gay marriage ruling among other things. They have to space them out. It just might be a sense of logistics dictating when the ruling has to come down. Like thepotatoman said, we're near the end anyway... so it might not even matter. But certainly a gap in between ACA and gay marriage is likely so that both can be digested. They're both big cases so, in a sense, we are already at the end.

On the other hand a ruling in favor of gay marriage is pretty controversial for the USA, so you might have a point... but my gut tells me that because there are back to back huge opinions coming down the line, it's really just logistics more than anything else, because both will need ample time on the news no matter how the court rules.

I think if they wanted to rule against the ACA they'd release it at the same time as a pro-gay marriage ruling. It would certainly dull the outrage and take away from the media cycle such a ruling would result in.

 

[HylianTom]

I'm guessing that the court isn't too picky on spacing cases out (as much as they can be "spaced out" at this late hour). In 2013, we saw the Voting Rights Act decision on June 25th, and then the marriage decisions on June 26th.. so we know they're not averse to stringing-together case combos.

And a side note:
after a bit of a (perceived) lull in May, the rhetoric around Obergefell definitely seems to have picked-up again over the past week or two. The outcome may be a pretty solid bet, which may lend itself to a sense of calm around the case.. but I'd still bet that reactions are going to be absolutely fierce. The GOP candidates aren't going to be able to get away with a "the Supreme Court has ruled/I strongly disagree/now let's move on"-type of deflection.

 

[Diablos]

I think if they wanted to rule against the ACA they'd release it at the same time as a pro-gay marriage ruling. It would certainly dull the outrage and take away from the media cycle such a ruling would result in.

Well if we don't get the ACA ruling by the end of the week, time to prepare for the worst I guess?

 

[Macho Madness]

Well if we don't get the ACA ruling by the end of the week, time to prepare for the worst I guess?

We'll know tomorrow at 10AM ET.

 

[Diablos]

We'll know tomorrow at 10AM ET.

Source?

 

[Macho Madness]

Source?

SCOTUS is releasing opinions on Mondays and Thursdays at 10AM ET until the end of this session.

 

[Diablos]

SCOTUS is releasing opinions on Mondays and Thursdays at 10AM ET until the end of this session.

Yes but other than CNBC or what have you I've read nothing saying the ruling is coming down tomorrow.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Except there's also the gay marriage ruling among other things. They have to space them out. It just might be a sense of logistics dictating when the ruling has to come down. Like thepotatoman said, we're near the end anyway... so it might not even matter. But certainly a gap in between ACA and gay marriage is likely so that both can be digested. They're both big cases so, in a sense, we are already at the end.

On the other hand a ruling in favor of gay marriage is pretty controversial for the USA, so you might have a point... but my gut tells me that because there are back to back huge opinions coming down the line, it's really just logistics more than anything else, because both will need ample time on the news no matter how the court rules.

I don't think the Court cares about the news cycle, generally. But if the challengers win in both King and Obergefell, I'd certainly be interested in releasing them on the same day if I were a justice, since I think the reactions would offset each other, and positive media coverage of each would cannibalize negative coverage of the other. But that's just speculation. It's also possible that opinions are still being finalized in one or both cases.

 

[Macho Madness]

Yes but other than CNBC or what have you I've read nothing saying the ruling is coming down tomorrow.

None. I was just saying if it's coming down before this weekend, we won't be waiting long.

 

[Diablos]

I don't think the Court cares about the news cycle, generally. But if the challengers win in both King and Obergefell, I'd certainly be interested in releasing them on the same day if I were a justice, since I think the reactions would offset each other, and positive media coverage of each would cannibalize negative coverage of the other. But that's just speculation. It's also possible that opinions are still being finalized in one or both cases.

If they're still finalizing King, I'd have to think that would bode well for the plaintiffs...

None. I was just saying if it's coming down before this weekend, we won't be waiting long.

True.

 

[Aaron Strife]

5-4 for King. Bet on it.

Well I'm going to bed. I'll wake up with no health insurance because Obama didn't want to call the mandate "fee" a tax.

Ok

6-3 for Burwell

 

[Metaphoreus]

If they're still finalizing King, I'd have to think that would bode well for the plaintiffs...

Not necessarily. It's obviously not going to be a 9-0 opinion (unless they DIG it or something), and the majority and dissenting opinions will almost certainly interact with each other. If there is no majority opinion (e.g., the liberals say the law clearly favors the government, the conservatives say it clearly favors the challengers, and Kennedy says it favors the challengers but the scheme is unconstitutionally coercive), then that just increases the number of opinions with which the other(s) will interact.

EDIT: Screw it. If we're making predictions, here's mine:

Justice Roberts will write an opinion finding that the subsidies were secretly letters of marque and reprisal all along, and so the government wins because.

Justice Kennedy will write a philosophical treatise disguised as a concurring opinion over the meaning of the word "state" and the dignity of the human person as represented politically by the state. Justice Breyer will agree that Constitutional rights actually belong to the government as agent of all the people, and not so much to individuals. No one will understand the relevance of either of these opinions.

Justice Ginsburg, having let the media fawning get to her head, will release a mix tape on which she drops ill beats, with Justice Sotomayor as occasional collaborator.

Justice Kagan will cite The Monster at the End of This Book for the proposition that

Spoiler

it was Grover all along.

Justice Thomas will dissent, and his dissent will be, in its entirety, "Fuck you, John Roberts." Justice Scalia will join this dissent. Justice Alito will also join this dissent, but write separately to clarify he'd have used the word "screw."

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't think the Court cares about the news cycle, generally. But if the challengers win in both King and Obergefell, I'd certainly be interested in releasing them on the same day if I were a justice, since I think the reactions would offset each other, and positive media coverage of each would cannibalize negative coverage of the other. But that's just speculation. It's also possible that opinions are still being finalized in one or both cases.

This is what I'd expect Roberts to do as, by all accounts, he seems to care deeply about how the court is perceived and would want to limit any potential damage to the court's reputation. He only cares about the news cycle insofar as it affects the court's image and reputation.

 

[thepotatoman]

Not necessarily. It's obviously not going to be a 9-0 opinion (unless they DIG it or something), and the majority and dissenting opinions will almost certainly interact with each other. If there is no majority opinion (e.g., the liberals say the law clearly favors the government, the conservatives say it clearly favors the challengers, and Kennedy says it favors the challengers but the scheme is unconstitutionally coercive), then that just increases the number of opinions with which the other(s) will interact.

EDIT: Screw it. If we're making predictions, here's mine:

Justice Roberts will write an opinion finding that the subsidies were secretly letters of marque and reprisal all along, and so the government wins because.

Justice Kennedy will write a philosophical treatise disguised as a concurring opinion over the meaning of the word "state" and the dignity of the human person as represented politically by the state. Justice Breyer will agree that Constitutional rights actually belong to the government as agent of all the people, and not so much to individuals. No one will understand the relevance of either of these opinions.

Justice Ginsburg, having let the media fawning get to her head, will release a mix tape on which she drops ill beats, with Justice Sotomayor as occasional collaborator.

Justice Kagan will cite The Monster at the End of This Book for the proposition that

Spoiler

it was Grover all along.

Justice Thomas will dissent, and his dissent will be, in its entirety, "Fuck you, John Roberts." Justice Scalia will join this dissent. Justice Alito will also join this dissent, but write separately to clarify he'd have used the word "screw."

Justice Ginsburg's mix tape will then become so popular, that all concurring opinions will commonly be released in rap form from here on out, while the man, Scalia and Thomas, complain that it's making a mockery of the court, arguing that things were better in the good old days.

 

[ivysaur12]

My final (if we are indeed getting the opinion tomorrow) prediction is 5-4 for the government, but I think it could go either way.

I don't think the Court cares about the news cycle, generally. But if the challengers win in both King and Obergefell, I'd certainly be interested in releasing them on the same day if I were a justice, since I think the reactions would offset each other, and positive media coverage of each would cannibalize negative coverage of the other. But that's just speculation. It's also possible that opinions are still being finalized in one or both cases.

The news cycle is probably still on their radar, as it would be for any human being involved in government.

If there is no majority opinion (e.g., the liberals say the law clearly favors the government, the conservatives say it clearly favors the challengers, and Kennedy says it favors the challengers but the scheme is unconstitutionally coercive), then that just increases the number of opinions with which the other(s) will interact.

I would guess this is what would happen, if I had to put money on it.

EDIT: Since the DC Circuit rejected the Origination claim in Sissel v. Health and Human Services (and from what I can tell, denied and en banc hearing), what legal options are left for Obamacare opponents? It seems like this and origination were their best bet, and origination lost jurisdiction in the 5th (which was their best chance to win a victory on the merits) and was rejected at DC. And King is King. If you're Metaa person from a conservative legal think tank, what other options do you have?

Serious question.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Whoa, Obama is going to do an episode of WTF, in the garage.

(Oh god traffic is going to be fucked for me)

 

[Diablos]

Maybe the court will delay the ruling due to the SC church shooting.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Whoa, Obama is going to do an episode of WTF, in the garage.

(Oh god traffic is going to be fucked for me)

The Marc Maron podcast?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Rand Paul: Blow up the tax code and start over

[O]n Thursday I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut that would repeal the entire IRS tax code—more than 70,000 pages—and replace it with a low, broad-based tax of 14.5% on individuals and businesses. I would eliminate nearly every special-interest loophole. The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. I call this “The Fair and Flat Tax.”

...

My tax plan would blow up the tax code and start over. In consultation with some of the top tax experts in the country, including the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and Reagan economist Arthur Laffer, I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. For low-income working families, the plan would retain the earned-income tax credit.

I would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies—down from as high as nearly 40% for small businesses and 35% for corporations. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules.

...

We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs.

And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts.

"When combined with my package of spending cuts" suggests the Tax Foundation told him his tax plan would reduce government revenue. I'd be interested in seeing a more detailed analysis.

 

[Frank the Great]

Rand Paul: Blow up the tax code and start over



"When combined with my package of spending cuts" suggests the Tax Foundation told him his tax plan would reduce government revenue. I'd be interested in seeing a more detailed analysis.

It's incredible how many people get fooled into thinking a flat tax is a fair tax. I'm talking about regular folks, the wealthy ones who support a flat tax are no fools.

 

[Plinko]

Rand Paul: Blow up the tax code and start over



"When combined with my package of spending cuts" suggests the Tax Foundation told him his tax plan would reduce government revenue. I'd be interested in seeing a more detailed analysis.

Stopped reading at "fair and flat tax."

The only people those "work" for is the rich and corporations.

 

[Macho Madness]

Four boxes for SCOTUS this morning.

 

[Diablos]

It's 10am omg

 

[kingkitty]

im ready for disappointment.

 

[ivysaur12]

Chris Geidner ‏@chrisgeidner 1m1 minute ago
First decision in Brumfield v. Cain, Sotomayor writes the 5-4 opinion, finding that Brumfield can have Atkins claim considered in fed'l ct.

Chris Geidner ‏@chrisgeidner 33s33 seconds ago
Atkins was the case in which #SCOTUS barred execution of the intellectually disabled.

.

 

[FyreWulff]

Flat taxes don't work and are a non-started. They disproportionately tax the poor while the rich can write it off as a rounding error in their expenses, and they have the capability to dodge the tax entirely.

 

[Diablos]

my ready for disappointment.

let's all hold hands, it will be okay

 

[ivysaur12]

Chris Geidner ‏@chrisgeidner 2m2 minutes ago
Second #SCOTUS decision is in Ohio v. Clark. Decision is by Alito.

Chris Geidner ‏@chrisgeidner 34s34 seconds ago
Statement of teacher about student's stmnt of abuse do not violate Confrontation Clause if introduced at trial. No dissent.

.

 

[Diablos]

 

[ivysaur12]

Chris Geidner ‏@chrisgeidner 4s4 seconds ago
Next opinion is Davis v. Ayala, 5-4 decision finding any error in excluding Ayala's attorney from Batson hearing was harmless. #SCOTUS

Chris Geidner ‏@chrisgeidner 31s31 seconds ago
* = part of Batson hearing

Alito opinion

 

[Metaphoreus]

Follow the SCOTUSblog live blog, noob.

 

[ivysaur12]

Follow the SCOTUSblog live blog, n00b.

fixed

 

[ivysaur12]

Chris Geidner ‏@chrisgeidner
Walker v. Texas Division of Confederate Veterans. Breyer has the decision. #SCOTUS

Chris Geidner ‏@chrisgeidner
#SCOTUS holds specialty license plates ARE gov't speech, and Texas CAN refuse Confed Veterans proposed plate.

Breyer opinion, Thomas in majority.

SCOTUSBLOG:

Holding: Texas's specialty license plate design constitutes government speech, and thus Texas was entitled to refuse to issue plates featuring the proposed Confederate Veterans' design.

Wow. That's an interesting one. Holding goes on to say that when government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says.