The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
BRIAN LEITER: SCOTUS JUDGES WILL DECIDE OBAMACARE ON FAIRNESS
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 4th, 2012 11:01 AM Author: trip slate church voyeur The "teachable moment" for elite law professors and lawyers, though, sadly, is this: namely, that in cases like this, the Supreme Court acts as a super-legislature, making decisions driven by preferred political outcomes, rather than by law. The mistake of most legal scholars was to think that settled precedents, the fact that omissions can of course produce effects, that healthcare is obviously a national market, that there are large economic consequences that flow from failure to have insurance, and on and on--the mistake was to think that these considerations would dictate the decision of the super-legislature, as opposed to the political ideology of the justices. Perhaps at the end of the day, it will turn out that the law does check political ideology, but if it does not, then the "teachable moment," including for the public, will be that appointments to the Supreme Court should be vetted in public as they are in private: namely, on the political and moral merits of the candidate, with "legal skill" coming a distant third as a relevant consideration.
|
 |
Date: April 4th, 2012 8:37 PM Author: Low-t pale house chad "...omissions can of course produce effects..."
Oh, what a scholar! |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 8:38 PM Author: crimson boistinker lodge I don't see "fairness" referred to here. or anything close. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20392978) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 8:42 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur political ideology=conception of fairness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20392998) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 8:52 PM Author: crimson boistinker lodge not necessarily. I don't believe in fairness at all. fairness is a lib thing. see rawls, justice as fairness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393066) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:00 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur then on what basis will the Justices decide the constitutionality of obamacare? Definitely not on the basis of CC jurisprudence. Wickard, NLRB v Laughlin Steel, the Motel case, and others didnt even get mentioned at oral argument--not to mention that Scalia didn't try to inquire as to what the original meaning of the CC was. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393119) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:03 PM Author: crimson boistinker lodge man you're so dumb. if you keep posting I'll out you, I know who you are (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393138) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:04 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur LOL! Plz do, brother. I am THE DRAGON.
Let's discuss the merits of Scalia's oral questions |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:05 PM Author: crimson boistinker lodge I don't discuss anything with a retard. you're that 2L who randomly brings Rawls and Nozick and Fuller into every conversation (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393151) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:07 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur Come on dude. Let's just talk about your thoughts on the oral argument last week--clements performance (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393163) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:07 PM Author: crimson boistinker lodge no. if you were smart you would know that this case is one of the least important of the term (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393165) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:09 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur Wait..what? Why is it the least important? And what is the most important? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393175) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:13 PM Author: crimson boistinker lodge plea bargain cases were possibly a huge deal. arizona v. u.s., kind of a big deal. douglas v. living center, armour v. indianapolis, kiobel, alvarez.. hosanna-tabor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393199) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:17 PM Author: Ebony Beady-eyed Famous Landscape Painting Point SCOTUS HIPSTER. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393223) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:18 PM Author: crimson boistinker lodge I'm not trying to be eclectic here, ppl much smarter than I have pointed out that Douglas is a way bigger deal for federalism purposes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393230) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 11:54 AM Author: trip slate church voyeur http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/1077.pdf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20635178) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:34 PM Author: primrose native becky lol cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393325) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:18 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur But why isn't the Obamacare case a big deal u think? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393229) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:21 PM Author: crimson boistinker lodge something that congress has done once ever and would probably never do again will or will not be held to be unconstitutional, and a ruling striking it down, though it may have some practical consequence if congress can't reenact anything, in theory shouldn't matter at all because all congress has to do is reenact the penalty without the subsection that says you must buy insurance. and call the penalty a tax this time, maybe. not sure that's even necessary (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393252) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 11:44 AM Author: Odious National To be fair,
Yeah bro it was so easy to pass this massive game-changing legislation that nationalized huge and important swathes of our economy the first time around, clearly the Democrats still have the political capital at this point to just turn around and re-enact it with a few minor tweaks. This decision also clearly won't have any potential fallout for the upcoming POTUS election, which will in all likelihood decide what the face of a future SCOTUS looks like, possible for decades to come.
All in all pretty much a non-story. |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 11:50 AM Author: trip slate church voyeur http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/sunday-review/are-oral-arguments-worth-arguing-about.html?ref=adamliptak
thoughts? |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 11:51 AM Author: Odious National To be fair,
I think I just made it clear that I think it's silly to waste any further time discussing a case as obviously frivolous and meaningless as this bro |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 11:52 AM Author: trip slate church voyeur How is it frivolous? I didn't get that impression from your poast. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20635165) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 11:52 AM Author: Odious National To be fair,
I've noticed you sometimes have problems with reading comprehension bro. You should work on that. Start by reading my post again slowly. |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 12:29 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur The tenor of your point sounded more like sarcasm, brother. Please elucidate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20635367) |
|
Date: June 19th, 2012 5:14 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20916111) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 10:25 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20971582) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 12:28 PM Author: cyan tanning salon selfie are you talking about the ACA? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20635359) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 12:29 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur Yes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20635362) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 11:32 AM Author: trip slate church voyeur (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20635055) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:07 PM Author: Medicated frozen theatre Any novel question requires using novel reasoning, thinking this expansion of power is excessive isn't necessarily related to fairness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393167) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:09 PM Author: crimson boistinker lodge has nothing to do with it at all really when you consider that all this case is about is federalism, not whether the power's constitutional generally (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393180) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:10 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board_v._Jones_%26_Laughlin_Steel_Corporation (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393185) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:13 PM Author: crimson boistinker lodge not about fairness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393203) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:15 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur Why didn't Verilli emphasize this case, or Wickard, and just point out that OBamacare is easily constitutional under these line of cases? Policy discussions seemed to dominant the questions.
Also, what the fuck was that 10th Amendment question by Scalia? Was that even briefed? |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:17 PM Author: crimson boistinker lodge because any smart scotus practitioner knows emphasizing old precedents is not a winning argument (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393226) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:17 PM Author: Medicated frozen theatre Prob because nobody ever argued that healthcare and insurance aren't interstate commerce (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393227) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2015 12:31 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#28910881) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 8:57 PM Author: Low-t pale house chad The appropriate ideology is the one that's fair to the "have-nots" by soaking the rich, in the mind of herrdockorprofessor Leitard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393100) |
Date: April 4th, 2012 8:48 PM Author: comical arrogant school cafeteria *files 30 page amicus brief* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393037) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 8:51 PM Author: Low-t pale house chad He would never expose himself to ridicule by pretending to be a lawyer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393059) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 8:51 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur Who? Leiter is a philsopher bro. Ph.D in Nietzsche studies (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393062) |
|
Date: June 20th, 2012 6:21 PM Author: Motley business firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20923199) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:07 PM Author: Histrionic ungodly hall tattoo *libs alter face of federalism through vast expansion of commerce clause jurisprudence*
*get IRATE when they find out there is an outer bounds to fed power over commerce* |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:08 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board_v._Jones_%26_Laughlin_Steel_Corporation (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393172) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:19 PM Author: maize public bath ladyboy I hate this buxom faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393240) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:27 PM Author: trip slate church voyeur Who? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393283) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2012 9:36 PM Author: underhanded stag film circlehead but, of course, Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of law, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20393335) |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 11:52 AM Author: Stirring gay wizard associate The court will “make decisions driven by preferred political outcomes, rather than by law." But, “perhaps at the end of the day, it will turn out that the law does check political ideology.”
Well, which is it? So I guess in his view it’s indeterminate after all as to whether politics or law wins. |
|
Date: May 7th, 2012 11:53 AM Author: trip slate church voyeur In 1971, in Cohen v. California, the court ruled that the First Amendment would not tolerate the punishment of Paul Cohen, who was arrested in 1968 for wearing a jacket in a Los Angeles courthouse that bore a three-word phrase concerning his attitude toward the draft. (Melville B. Nimmer, a leading law professor of the day who represented Mr. Cohen, characterized the phrase this way: “Mr. Cohen was not actually advocating sexual intercourse with the Selective Service.”) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#20635173) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2012 2:35 AM Author: plum sandwich institution (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1915965&forum_id=2#21026227) |