The court asked the parties to brief and argue for an hour whether the lawsuit brought by the states challenging the insurance mandate is barred by the 19th century Anti-Injunction Act. That’s a law that precludes claimants from asking for a refund on a tax until the tax has been collected and paid. If the court were to determine that this law applies in this case, then the courts wouldn't have jurisdiction to even consider the challenges until 2015, when the tax-penalty provision goes into effect. This argument was advanced in the 4th Circuit decision upholding the ACA and made with even more force by Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals when it upheld the ACA last week. In a 65-page dissent, Kavanaugh writes: “For judges, there is a natural and understandable inclination to decide these weighty and historic constitutional questions. But in my respectful judgment, deciding the constitutional issues in this case at this time would contravene … the Anti- Injunction Act.”Not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand better.
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.It seems to me that Kagan's impartiality is certainly questionable after reading her email to Lawrence Tribe (linked above). It's also manifestly clear that she "expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy" by applauding its impending passage by the Congress.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
“So it is no accident, I think, that the modern view that the death penalty is immoral has centered in the West. That has little to do with the fact that the West has a Christian tradition and everything to do with the fact that the West is the domain of democracy. Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is, the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post-Christian Europe and has least support in the church-going United States. I attribute that to the fact that for the believing Christian, death is no big deal. Intentionally killing an innocent person is a big deal, a grave sin which causes one to lose his soul, but losing this physical life in exchange for the next – the Christian attitude is reflected in the words Robert Bolt’s play has Thomas More saying to the headsman: “Friend, be not afraid of your office. You send me to God.” And when Cramner asks whether he is sure of that, More replies, “He will not refuse one who is so blithe to go to him.”So back to the question, does BobbyVan think Scalia should recuse himself from ever voting on a death penalty case again, he has after all said that he not only supports the death penalty, but that he's perfectly fine with killing innocent people too.
For the non-believer, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence – what a horrible act. And besides being less likely to regard death as an utterly cataclysmic punishment, the Christian is also more likely to regard punishment in general as deserved. The doctrine of free will, the ability of man to resist temptations to evil is central to the Christian doctrine of salvation and damnation, heaven and hell. The post-Freudian secularist, on the other hand, is more inclined to think that people are what their history and circumstances have made them, and there is little sense in assigning blame.”
every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powderI'm not certain that the ACA is on as shaky ground as its opponents would like.
In all seriousness though, can someone please explain what the logical rationale is for: In fact, justices are exempt from the Code of Conduct that governs the actions of lower federal judges. (from the article)I am guessing that it has to do with the fact that all federal courts except for the Supreme Court are established by acts of Congress. Presumably the legislation that Congress passes which establishes an inferior court could impose rules upon that court.
Is that true? I'm totally ignorant of this sort of thing, so there very well may be a good reason for it... what would that reason be?
« Older BBC's "Frozen Planet" series will not be airing an... | Jane Austen 'died from arsenic... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by WidgetAlley at 12:08 PM on November 15, 2011 [6 favorites]