supreme court – Page 5

Obama’s first lose-lose Obamacare-related argument today.

The first round of the US Supreme Court’s attempts to settle the problem that is Obamacare takes place today, and from the Obama administration’s purely partisan (and particularly puerile) perspective, there’s no winning scenario available. Essentially, what’s happening today is the courts are hearing arguments about whether or not Obamacare’s individual mandate qualifies as a tax. If it does qualify as a tax, then under the provisions of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (TAIA) the mandate cannot actually be challenged in courts until it’s actually been collected; more plainly, you can’t sue for relief from an onerous tax before they take it from you.

The merits of the case are one thing – the above link from Heritage goes into the whole issue, in some detail – but the partisan implications are another. There’s no good result for the Obama administration: if the Supreme Court decides that the individual mandate is not a tax then a large portion of the administration’s existing arguments goes away, thus increasing the likelihood of a humiliating disposal (at least in part) of the one thing that Obama has managed to do domestically in four years. But if the mandate is a tax, then Obama gets to face a plethora of attack ads in the fall which will be (accurately) portraying him as a shameless serial liar who used the looming Obamacare legislation to sneak in a stealth tax on the American middle class. Continue reading Obama’s first lose-lose Obamacare-related argument today.

#rsrh Supreme Court to rule Obamacare is a tax on middle class?

If so… um, thanks?

To sum up the argument: the Obama administration has always been two-faced over whether the individual mandate is a tax or not, due to the horrifically botched way that the Democrats shoved Obamacare down America’s throat. If the mandate is not a tax, its constitutionality becomes highly iffy; and if it is a tax then Obama lied like a cheap rug when he promised the American people that their taxes weren’t going up:

Mind you, people shouldn’t have believed that nonsense from Obama in the first place. Politicians lie, people. Continue reading #rsrh Supreme Court to rule Obamacare is a tax on middle class?

Reviewing Ann Bradley’s physical attack on David Prosser…

…what? I am perfectly entitled to use the rules of thumb popularized by left-wing hack groups like ThinkProgress or Talking Points Memo: since they felt justified in using uncorroborated anonymous reports to vicariously convict Prosser of assault, they have absolutely no justification for other people using the precise same criteria to vicariously convict Bradley. Besides, my version makes much more coherent sense.

OK, let me explain this one for folks coming in late. About two weeks ago there was supposedly a violen… oh, let’s not use euphemisms: supposedly, two Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices (Prosser and Bradley) got into a fight. It was first reported that Prosser put Bradley in a choke-hold – whereupon most of the Online Left dropped their pants and started typing blissfully angry screeds about how the crime of one Supreme Court Justice attacking another Supreme Court Justice could only be made right with an immediate resignation – only to have it later come out that other reports had it that Bradley had actually charged Prosser with fists raised, and that Prosser was merely defending himself against a larger and younger opponent. Complicating all of this is the minor detail that no charges were apparently filed*, and Bradley has only now come out with a rather belated claim accusing Prosser of the choking, while not explaining why she is not pursuing a criminal case. Which is very possibly due to the fact that there’s at least one witness apparently who told Bradley at the time that no, she had not been choked.

Note, by the way, that all of the people involved – participants and witnesses – are Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices. You’re going to see some fascinating dissents from these people for the next few years. Continue reading Reviewing Ann Bradley’s physical attack on David Prosser…

#rsrh Losing Dowd on Kagan.

The way this administration is handling Supreme Court pick (and current Solicitor General) Elena Kagan may just have more Left-pushback than I assumed: it’s making Maureen Dowd wax most sarcastic.

[‘Voice’ of Joe Biden]: This week, when the president first told me he’d chosen Elena Kagan to serve on the Supreme Court, I couldn’t help but smile. I met her 20 years ago, when she took a break from teaching school and chasing guys to join my staff in the Senate, and even back then, it was easy to picture her in a black robe.

Of course, Elena prefers to see herself in something frillier, because she’s a girl’s girl. Just try dragging her out of La Perla! And I’m sure, under those robes, she’ll be rocking some Juicy Couture jeans and Christian Louboutin suede boudoir slides. Uh-oh. Did I sound gay there for a minute? Well, I’m not. And neither is Elena Kagan.

[snip]

Elena is anything but a history-making, barrier-breaking, proud, strong, happy gay woman. She’s a garden-variety, sad, scary, single, childless career woman who can’t get a man because she’s too smart, works too much and refuses to settle.

I’d like to repeat for the record – once again – that wide swathes of the Right are largely indifferent to whether or not SG Kagan is gay. Although if it turns out that she is we’d quite like to know why this administration felt the need to lie about it.

#rsrh USSC to review video game ban appeal.

Sorry that the title isn’t snappy, but it happens.

High Court Will Rule On Violent Video Game Ban

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether California can ban the sale or rental of violent video games to children.

The court will review a federal court’s decision to throw out California’s ban.

The court in question is the 9th, which has a long and in/glorious (depending on who you ask) history of having its rulings smacked down by the USSC. Preliminary assumption is that they’ll sustain it, given that there was a roughly similar case last week involving animal cruelty that got struck down – but it’s the Supreme Court. You never know what those wacky guys and gals over there are going to do.

Moe Lane

PS: My opinion is that I don’t need the legislature to help me decide whether or not I should let my kids have access to violent video games. And that I don’t need the courts to validate my decision, either; that door swings in both directions.

A call for packing the Supreme Court? Is this man MAD?

This is a joke, right?

This may come as a surprise to some people, but the U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court.

[snip]

So if nine justices is not writ in stone, the embattled President Obama should deal with this hostile conservative/reactionary court by adding three members.

(Via AoSHQ) Leaving aside the fact that author Stan Isaacs apparently felt the need to educate his readers about something which would be familiar to anybody with even a basic working knowledge of 20th century American history*, I’m wondering whether Isaacs can actually count. The President can declare as many Supreme Court justices as he likes; getting them confirmed requires Senate approval.

And if it was OK for then-Senator Obama to filibuster Alito for ideological reasons, then it’s certainly OK for us to return the favor. And the GOP has the votes. And the GOP base will descend like an asteroid from orbit on any GOP Senator that even looks like he or she will not support a filibuster against packing the US Supreme Court. And then the GOP will rake the Democrats over the coals about it in the November elections.

So, really. Feel free to try this.

Moe Lane

PS: My initial reaction to the size of the Supreme Court is that it’s not outside the realm of possibility that we’d be better off if the number was reduced to, say, seven. I’m not wedded to that opinion; I’ve never really thought about it before.

*Insert the standard rant on the American public school system here.

Crossposted to RedState.

‘How they confirm Supreme Court judges.’

The confirmation of judges to the United States Supreme Court is a process that is exclusively the responsibility of the United States Senate. A candidate (like Ms. Sotomayor) is brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee for evaluation/grilling: once she makes it out of the committee (it’s generally considered a good idea to have at least one crossover vote), she is then voted on by the full Senate. At no time is the House of Representatives involved.

Why am I mentioning this? Because apparently the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee doesn’t know any of this. Doubleplusundead reported that this was the title of a press release*:

Senator Cornyn Votes NO on Sotomayor – Where is Rep. Pete Sessions?

To which FamousDC responded:

In the House.
Not voting on a Supreme Court nominee.
They only do that in the Senate.

I’m sure that we all hope that the DCCC has taken this lesson in elementary civics to heart, and earnestly that the offending press release in question is at least not lonely, wherever it’s been memory-holed*. Then again, it’s probably keeping company* with all those press releases on how well the DCCC is recruiting this cycle, so at least it has friends* in this, its time of sudden darkness.

Moe Lane

PS: Of course the NRCC would love to hear from you.

*Allegedly.

Crossposted to RedState.

Perhaps the White House doesn’t want Sotomayor confirmed.

Look who they’ve farmed the prep work off on:

Cynthia Hogan, chief counsel to Vice President Biden, will lead the White House team, with assistance from several other Biden aides. Former Obama campaign adviser and transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter will handle message and communications, two administration officials tell CNN.

The vice president, a veteran of Supreme Court nominations from his time on the Judiciary Committee, is also expected to play a key role, an administration official confirmed to CNN.

This helpful graphic may clarify the point:

That’s from the Alito hearings, which the Democrats rather badly wanted to short-circuit, but couldn’t. I concur in the implicit advice suggested by that graphic and the end of the CNN article: GOP Senators, make Sotomayor talk and talk and talk. Short questions, make her clarify everything, and the Senators going on later, keep track of what she was saying earlier and ask her about that.And here is my radical suggestion for these hearings:

I want every Republican Senator on that committee to set a goal of no more than 1,000 words for questions, and stick to it.

These are days for boldness.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

Quote of the Day, Supreme Court edition.

Via Hot Air Headlines: “Conservatives itching for SCOTUS fight.” Remove the snide tone (which, to be fair, is much less than usual), and this Politico article pretty much sums up the GOP base’s attitude: it’s time to go waltzing Matilda.

“The other side does not agonize about whether they are going to give a Republican Supreme Court nominee a difficult time, they just do it.” – Gary Bauer, president of American Values.

Don’t like it? Have the President nominate a real moderate, then – and by ‘moderate’ I do not mean ‘liberal who doesn’t express hatred for Republicans anywhere there might be a recording device.’ Think that you can’t wait, because our coming out swinging is going to help the liberal cause with Americans? Funny: that’s what they said about Cheney throwing down on enhanced interrogation techniques. I’d suggest that people ask Nancy Pelosi how she thinks that one worked out, except that she responds to all questions like that these days by putting her fingers in her ears and shouting ‘LALALA!’. Which would not be cute if my two-year-old did that; you can imagine how it looks on someone who is third in line for the Presidency.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

Obama yanking Granholm out of Michigan?

I note with some interest (via a post from The Other McCain) that there are some Democrats still out there that are apparently seriously contemplating supporting the nomination of Governor Jennifer Granholm to the Supreme Court.

Granholm seen as possible fresh face

DETROIT, May 17 (UPI) — Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm would provide a fresh perspective to the U.S. Supreme Court if she is nominated by President Barack Obama, analysts say.

Yes, I suppose that the Governor would provide a ‘fresh perspective’ to the Supreme Court. To the best of my knowledge, no sitting Justice there has managed to almost double an entire state’s unemployment rate in five short years. Particularly when the national unemployment rate was trending downward for most of that time:

Michigan/USA Unemployment Rate

Or is it just a case of testing to destruction The Peter Principle once and for all? If so, I give full credit to the Obama administration for seriously contemplating rescuing the people of Michigan from one of its primary (and no doubt, well-meaning) tormentors… but must it be the Supreme Court? Surely they have not filled all the slots at Fish & Game yet? My father-in-law would vehemently object to that particular suggestion, but sacrifices must sometimes be made.

Moe Lane

PS: Interestingly, this line of thought suggests that Rep Conyers hates Michigan, and wishes for it to suffer some more.

Crossposted to RedState.