1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court watch

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by JayFarrar, Jun 25, 2015.

  1. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, survives, again.

    Housing also won.

    Four left for a big day in Supreme Court action

  2. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    It was 6-3 in favor, too. Awesome. I'm reading Scalia's butthurt dissent as we speak.
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2015
  3. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

  4. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    And as the Lord giveth, He taketh away.

    Scotus Blog says no more opinions today, expect more on Friday and a Monday session.
  5. BitterYoungMatador2

    BitterYoungMatador2 Well-Known Member

    Translation: Health insurance company lobbyists said "back off and shut up."
  6. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    I think for Roberts at least it was more not wanting the Court to be Issue Number One in the election next year, with him cast as the designated villain by the Democratic candidate.
    steveu likes this.
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    My law school classmate and co-worker, who I consider a friend, is a Scalia clerk this term. Rough week for him. He did get to witness Scherzer's no-hitter in person, though, so it's not all bad.
  8. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Holy hell, whoda thunk it. I was expecting either 5-4 the other way, or some kind of bizarro split-the-baby 5-4 decision with several key poison pill exceptions/ exemptions.
  9. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    "SCOTUScare." Scalia. The man is an angry genius.
  10. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    I'm hoping we get the gay marriage ruling (which I've more confident about than this one) last to end the session on a high note.

    I think the business community has a lot of sway with Roberts.
  11. Amy

    Amy Well-Known Member

    I had no idea how the votes were going to fall, but the legal analysis for the two sides is not a big surprise. This isn't constitutional law. It's statutory interpretation. If the justices wanted to uphold ACA for whatever reason, they find the phrase "exchange established by the State" ambiguous, so the "by the State" part can be interpreted by a broader look at the statutory construct and legislative intent. If they don't, they apply basic statutory construction rules to rule that "by the State" means "by the State."

    As a tax lawyer, I had to laugh at his reasoning if Congress had intended to limit credits to state exchanges they would have done it somewhere prominent, not in a "sub-sub-sub section of the Tax Code."
  12. steveu

    steveu Well-Known Member

    I can think of a lot of people now who think he's the designated villain. :) Bitterly unhappy with this decision, but it just means it comes down to 2016.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page