Yep. Above SSI income (which brings Medicaid) but unable to fit into any of the special categories that bring Medicaid coverage (children, adult caretaker of minors, pregnancy...) That's part of the reason why expanding would be such a big deal in those states.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Yep. Above SSI income (which brings Medicaid) but unable to fit into any of the special categories that bring Medicaid coverage (children, adult caretaker of minors, pregnancy...) That's part of the reason why expanding would be such a big deal in those states.
Macho Madness
Member
Glossip vs Gross, 5-4, Alito opinion.
Inmates did not properly explain why use of midazolam violated the eighth amendment, nor provide a reasonable alternative.
Inmates did not properly explain why use of midazolam violated the eighth amendment, nor provide a reasonable alternative.
RBG and Breyer are questioning if the death penalty is constitutional.
Interesting that the other two liberals did not join them in asking that question, but that's pretty big in and of itself still.
edit: Multiple dissents being read. This is rare. The Court is at war with itself!
Alito really seems to be attacking Breyer hard in his opinion, but I'm just skimming through it.
BertramCooper
Banned
If Hillary wins the presidency, capital punishment will be gone within the next 10-15 years.
I'm pretty confident of that.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
It appears Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented with the Arizona redistricting.
5-4.
That's relatively huge, no? This means the group in power can't redistrict as they see fit.
5-4.
SCOTUSBLOG said:
That's relatively huge, no? This means the group in power can't redistrict as they see fit.
Hmm... a more neutral win for potentially cracking down on Gerrymandering?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_kjfl.pdf
Ginsburg writes the opinion. <3
Amy Howe said:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_kjfl.pdf
Ginsburg writes the opinion. <3
BertramCooper
Banned
It's not an effective crime deterrent, it's incredibly expensive, and in my opinion, it clearly violates the 8th amendment (though previous SCOTUSes have obviously disagreed).
It's going to take a Supreme Court ruling to ever fully rid our country of it. Some states will simply never let it go.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Two crappy decisions. Especially upset at the EPA one. Its disasterous for the environment.
The EPA has to consider costs? What a stupid assertion. The government environment protection agency is a counter balance to obsessions with cost (what about future costs anyways on the part of the government?)
The EPA has to consider costs? What a stupid assertion. The government environment protection agency is a counter balance to obsessions with cost (what about future costs anyways on the part of the government?)
NYCmetsfan
Banned
It seems likely the death penalty is going to be gone if dems when the presidency.
Breyer pretty much said it was unconsitutional (no shit, how can killing someone not be Cruel and Unusual)
I also watched The Thin Blue Line last night. Our justice system is so screwed up and has been forever.
I'm worried about its implications for climate change regulations.
Its not going to affect this particually issue but its trying to lead the way for courts to block costly regulations.
Breyer pretty much said it was unconsitutional (no shit, how can killing someone not be Cruel and Unusual)
I also watched The Thin Blue Line last night. Our justice system is so screwed up and has been forever.
I'm worried about its implications for climate change regulations.
Its not going to affect this particually issue but its trying to lead the way for courts to block costly regulations.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Coriolanus
Banned
Quite.
BertramCooper
Banned
No retirements announced today - not that anyone expected any.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Roberts hilarious complaint about a "magic trick" is hilarious considering his magic trick in the original Obamacare case (I agree with both and his original opinion that courts should try to uphold laws)
There's still orders tomorrow I think.
BTW AA is going back to the court. I can't help but think its done
There's still orders tomorrow I think.
BTW AA is going back to the court. I can't help but think its done
I really think green energy is a train that can't be stopped now. Too much investment across the board. This is a speed bump not a brick wall. Whether we do it quickly enough to save humanity from itself, well that was never guaranteed, we were probably already fucked 20 years ago :/
BertramCooper
Banned
According to my attorney/court wonk best friend (who admittedly is a great source of my knowledge and enthusiasm for SCOTUS matters), the EPA case probably isn't that big of a deal.
They'll probably just have to account for costs in their rules and reissue them.
We'll get a huge case involving the EPA's Clean Power rules in the next couple of years, but this definitely wasn't it.
They'll probably just have to account for costs in their rules and reissue them.
We'll get a huge case involving the EPA's Clean Power rules in the next couple of years, but this definitely wasn't it.
BertramCooper
Banned
States need to get a shitload of redistricting ballot initiatives ready for 2016.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Scalia's right on this. Both the Fifth Amendment (ratified contemporaneously with the Eighth) and the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified some 75 years later) imply that the death penalty is allowed, so long as "due process" is provided. Any reading of "cruel and unusual" that prohibits what the Constitution elsewhere (and subsequently) clearly permits is disingenuous. Such a reading could only be endorsed because of prior (non-Constitutional) philosophical or political commitments.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Things change. The constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, today's understanding makes it so it is prohibited. Societies change and the constitution does with it. (I know the constitution makes references to depriving someone of life)
And even with Scalia's understanding how anyone can say there is true due process is absurd
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Just as I said: Your position requires reading your philosophical beliefs about the death penalty into the text of a Constitution that doesn't reflect those beliefs.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't think the constitution is the bible and previous court decisions have held this view as well (I think it should be decided that every other developed nation besides Japan has stopped it). The world has decided its cruel and unusual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The Constitution isn't the Bible, but it is the law. I'm curious what other laws you take this approach with: "Well, Officer, the law may require me to drive on the right side of the street, but they do it different in enlightened Europe! Things change, don'tcha know?!"
NYCmetsfan
Banned
That's not my position at all. If we didn't have the 8th amendment I wouldn't say a court could overturn it.
My opinion is when determining when things are "cruel and unusual" we look towards general society in and outside the country. The US isn't an island. Its only to be used to better help clarify meanings which change.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The simple fact is that, even to the extent that the Eighth Amendment should be routinely updated to transform national opinion into the supreme law of the land via judicial decision, the implications of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments mean that the Court's power of Constitutional revision doesn't extend to completely banning the death penalty.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
There can be contradictions in the constitution with one being given preeminence (the 8th) and the implications 5th and 14th being assigned as anachronistic. Hell the 13th still permits slavery if its after due process.
Just off the top of my head the 14th Section 3 and 1st contradict each other too (taking an oath is an action but it show how things are subject to interpretation)
That was my thought as well. It's a speed bump but the train has been rolling fast already.
Why would train tracks have speed bumps.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I don't understand what contradiction between sections 1 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment you're referring to. (EDIT: Oh, you mean the First Amendment, not section 1 of the Fourteenth. This isn't a contradiction; it's a revision. And it's a revision properly situated in time: the later Fourteenth Amendment creates a carveout from the protections of the earlier First. You're attempting to have the Eighth Amendment preemptively amend the Fourteenth, but that's not how it works.)
To the extent of a conflict between the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth, the later-ratified amendment (i.e., the Fourteenth) would be read as controlling. The only way you get around that is by arrogating to the courts the power to impose judge's personal philosophies without Constitutional warrant.
By limiting the deprivation of life except by "due process of law," and by protecting against having one's life placed in jeopardy a second time for the same offense, the Fifth Amendment implies that the federal government has the power to put people to death sometimes. There is no vagueness here.
Thomas's dissent in AZ. Leg is something. He's mad that the majority in Obergefell (the same in AZ. Leg) now views themselves as champions of the initiative process when so many gay marriage bans were enacted through popular vote.
Ignoring that his dissent has the same basic rational as Obergefell: a state, through the initiative process, has enacted an unconstitutional law.
Ignoring that his dissent has the same basic rational as Obergefell: a state, through the initiative process, has enacted an unconstitutional law.
Retromelon
Member
Well its too bad for clarence that civil rights are not up for majority vote
Aaron Strife
Banned
Democrats really need to get on independent redistricting ballot initiatives in Ohio and Michigan, and getting one in Florida that has teeth. If Clinton wins the 2018 election is probably going to suck, so we can't pin our hopes on winning the gubernatorial elections. Virginia and Pennsylvania will hopefully keep their Democratic governors by the time redistricting happens again.
Someone on DKE also suggested getting one going for Utah as well, where you could probably make a solid blue district based in SLC so Democrats wouldn't need to rely on blue dogs like Matheson to win anything.
Someone on DKE also suggested getting one going for Utah as well, where you could probably make a solid blue district based in SLC so Democrats wouldn't need to rely on blue dogs like Matheson to win anything.
BertramCooper
Banned
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah the Ohio map is a fucking travesty.
Democrats have made some ugly maps too (Maryland and Illinois) but uggggggggh.
Democrats have made some ugly maps too (Maryland and Illinois) but uggggggggh.
What about the states that are legislative only like much of the South and parts of the midwest/northeast that cant be done through citizen signatures?
What is the action there?
BertramCooper
Banned
Presumably they'll just have to try to pressure their legislatures to put such initiatives on the ballot.
Which, heh, yeah, sure.
This is actually why this opinion is a bummer for death penalty opponents. Probably the ideal result here would have been for SCOTUS to find that, while the death penalty is constitutionally legal, the state is responsible for identifying a method of carrying it out that isn't cruel and unusual, and no method that currently exists meets the case.
Unfortunately, by introducing what amounts to a relative standard of cruelty, this opinion severely undercuts that method of attack on the death penalty.
Macho Madness
Member
Biden suddenly brought back up as potentially running.
It was apparently Beau's dying wish:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...unning-2016-presidential-election-119524.html
It was apparently Beau's dying wish:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...unning-2016-presidential-election-119524.html
PhoenixDark
Banned
Biden's goofball persona probably ruined his shot IMO. He had a chance to really change perceptions and lay the groundwork for a run; I'm sure Obama would have been fine with helping him take center stage a bit more in 2014-2015, quietly setting the stage for a run. Instead Biden hasn't really done anything to suggest he's running, and jumping in late seems like a bad idea.
Granted he has the name recognition and clout as VP, but I don't see it working.
Plus...he's 72. Does he really want to travel around the country again, deal with Bernie Sanders attacking his record, etc. I'd be curious...would Biden run on the basis of being a one term president. IE "if I win I won't run for reelection so I can spend my entire term getting things done."
Granted he has the name recognition and clout as VP, but I don't see it working.
Plus...he's 72. Does he really want to travel around the country again, deal with Bernie Sanders attacking his record, etc. I'd be curious...would Biden run on the basis of being a one term president. IE "if I win I won't run for reelection so I can spend my entire term getting things done."
and does he want to get stomped by the Clinton machine. To be honest I would have loved a Biden and Clinton only primary.
Roland_Gunner
Member
There was a non-partisan redistricting initiative in Ohio in 2012 and it got crushed. I don't have much hope for these things unless some billionaire gets behind it.
http://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Redistricting_Amendment,_Issue_2_(2012)
Yellowtail
Member
Anything Dick Harpootlian says needs to be taken with several mountains of salt.
RustyNails
Member
I've been trying to find out an answer for this. Can Republicans take obamacare to court again? If so, will we have to go through this circus again as well?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked