So, as I’ve been suggesting, I’d be all for some kind of deal (how is a problem, of course) that would let ObamaCare slide if the Democrats, taking the president’s lead, started to work to get ROE reversed (or get Congress working to strip the Court of the relevant jurisdiction).
Maybe this is purely a graphical question – maybe not – but is it customary to put (R) or (D) after a judge's name?
Ugh, he called it Obamacare from the bench
So far, Attorney General Holder has indicated that DOJ will 'respond appropriately.'
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I thought — I thought that Wickard was you must buy; we are not going to let you use the home-grown wheat. You have got to go out in the market and buy that wheat that you don't want.
MR. CARVIN: Oh, but let's be careful about what they were regulating in Wickard, Justice Ginsburg. What they were regulating was the supply of wheat. It didn't in any way imply that they could require every American to go out and buy wheat.
"Happy birthday, Obamacare," Jim Messina, the president's campaign manager, wrote in an email to supporters last week to note the anniversary of the reform becoming law.
"If you're tired of the other side throwing around that word like it's an insult, then join me in sending a message that we're proud of it," he wrote.
Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.
And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint—that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
As we stated in our 2005 report, voter ID laws are not a problem in and of themselves. Rather, the current crop of laws are not being phased in gradually and in a fair manner that would increase — not reduce — voter participation.
See, e.g., Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124, 136 (1929) (stating that gift tax was excise); Flint v. Stone Tracey Co., 220 U.S. 107, 150 (1906) (holding that corporate income tax was excise); Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 78-79 (1900) (establishing that estate tax was excise).
In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”
The government claims in the alternative that the individual mandate is a tax validly enacted pursuant to the Taxing and Spending Clause...Like every other court that has addressed this claim, we remain unpersuaded.
It is not surprising to us that all of the federal courts, which have otherwise reached sharply divergent conclusions on the constitutionality of the individual man-date, have spoken on this issue with clarion uniformity. Beginning with the district court in this case, all have found, without exception, that the individual man-date operates as a regulatory penalty, not a tax.
The point here is that the dividing line between the dissent and the majority is not a constitutionally principled one. This is not a question of whether a strip search is per se unconstitutional. Breyer concedes that it is constitutionally permissible. The question in this case is whether the evidence is sufficient to show that it is reasonable in this instance. And when you look, it all really comes down to the degree to which the majority was willing to give deference to the administrators about the importance of this while Breyer and the dissenters wanted more objective evidence of the need.
In analyzing the case the court noted that numerous other circuits had concluded that strip searches of arrestees brought into a jail for a minor offense violated the 4th Amendment. The court also noted that many of these decisions relied on the balancing test applied by the United States Supreme Court in Bell v. Wolfish.
Writing for the court's conservative wing, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that jails are "often crowded, unsanitary, and dangerous places," and that, therefore, the courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials in order to prevent new inmates from putting lives at risk with weapons or contraband that they may "carry in on their bodies."
Bernard Harcourt, a law professor at the University of Chicago, however, called the decision "frightening ... the kind of logic that can turn a democracy into a police state" because it is premised on the notion of eliminating all risk at the expense of those who reasonably pose little risk.
In fact, at least 10 states outlaw routine strip searches of those arrested for minor charges, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service bar visual body cavity searches for those arrested on misdemeanor or civil contempt charges. "What the court did was to take a practice that was not universal and give it its constitutional imprimatur," says Harvard Law School professor Carol Steiker. The open question, she said, is whether states that have forbidden this practice will now move to permit blanket strip searches of those arrested for minor charges.
« Older "their purposes are entirely opaque to me, as are ... | Angry Birds, Farmville and Oth... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt