Republicans and Republican enablers disgust me.
You are currently browsing articles tagged SCOTUS.
I don’t have a prediction.
Scalia has demonstrated that he has no respect for the constitution, and he’s a RW/GOP hack, but protecting insurance companies is a RW cause, so who knows how he and the other 3 RW judges will rule? Lord knows, protecting corporate profits rules Alito’s world. IMO, Alito’s the worst judge of the 20th and 21st centuries, although Thomas certainly gives him a run for the money. Roberts is another RW hack, but he shows occasional flashes of sanity and objectivity, so his vote on the mandate is a mystery, to me.
I think Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer will uphold the constitution, but I’m not sure what that means in terms of the individual mandate. They’ll uphold the rest of the law, but maybe not the mandate.
Which, as usual, leaves Kennedy making the decision. Probably. Like I said, I don’t really have a prediction. If I absolutely had to guess, and I don’t, I’d bet on Scalia upholding the mandate but nothing else, with Alito and Thomas joining him. That was sort of tongue in cheek, but I have to believe it’s crossed their foul minds.
OK, if I have to guess, I’m betting the mandate will fall, but “severability” will allow the rest of the law to remain. Probably 5-4 on the mandate, and 7-3 on “severability”. Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are just politically motivated hacks at this point, and they’ll rule to overturn the whole thing. Roberts will join along with Kennedy and “the liberals” on maintaining the rest of the law.
But that’s not why I’m posting. Check this out;
While the White House, Congressional Republicans and Mitt Romney’s Presidential Campaign have probably worked out how they are going to react to the Supreme Court ruling, expected tomorrow, on President Obama’s health care law, the House Progressive Caucus is preparing themselves as well. According to Progressive Caucus c-chair Representative Keith Ellison, they are going to start pushing a single-payer system they are going to term “Medicare For All”.
In an interview with The Huffington Post Ellison said that a single-payer, publicly funded and administered program is the easiest and cheapest way to cover all Americans. He also said that all 75 members of the Progressive Caucus had signed onto the plan.
I’m going to repeat this ad nauseum (the beatings will continue until morale improves); there are NO progressive Republicans. There IS a difference between the two parties.
Don’t ya just wish that Sarah Palin was helping John McCain choose his replacement?
Murray Hill might be the perfect candidate for this political moment: young, bold, media-savvy, a Washington outsider eager to reshape the way things are done in the nation’s capital. And if these are cynical times, well, then, it’s safe to say Murray Hill is by far the most cynical.
That’s because this little upstart is, in fact, a start-up. Murray Hill is actually Murray Hill Inc., a small, five-year-old Silver Spring public relations company that is seeking office to prove a point (and perhaps get a little attention).
After the Supreme Court declared that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to funding political campaigns, the self-described progressive firm took what it considers the next logical step: declaring for office.
Many legal experts say they expect the court to use its imminent ruling, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to eliminate the remaining restrictions on advertisements for or against candidates paid for by corporations, unions and advocacy organizations. (The case centers on whether spending restrictions apply to a conservative group’s documentary, “Hillary: The Movie.”)
Even if the court rules more narrowly, legal experts and political advocates say that the 2010 elections will bring the first large-scale application of previous court decisions that have all but stripped away those restrictions. Though the rulings have not challenged the bans on direct corporate contributions to parties and candidates, political operatives say that as a practical matter the rulings and a deadlock at the Federal Election Commission have already opened wide latitude for independent groups to advocate for and against candidates.
“It will be no holds barred when it comes to independent expenditures,” said Kenneth A. Gross, a veteran political law expert at the firm of Skadden Arps in Washington.
Get ready for the most negative election season, ever.
(Until we get it PERFECT we might be executing innocent people.)
The court said Wednesday it will consider a challenge to Chicago’s (handgun) ban, and even gun control supporters believe a victory is likely for gun-rights proponents.
The other day I heard Bill Clinton say that the Democrats lost the congress in 1994 because of the assault weapons ban. It will be interesting to see how they handle this. Will the WH advocate for or against this law, or will they try to stay out of it entirely?
I suspect, but don’t know, that if Obama is pressed on this he’ll come out in favor of overturning an outright ban like Chicago’s. Which would be an amazing act of courage, given the lunacy and threats of the right.
How would “you” like it if a state passed a law taking away your right to enter certain churches?
Proponents of “states rights” are usually hypocritical anti-abortion zealots. The same people are often hypocritical “states have no rights” when it comes to guns. Opponents of the second amendment are often hypocritical “states rights” supporters on this issue, and opponents of states rights when it comes to abortion. These two issues will continue to re-shape politics for years.
Update 2: Best wishes for a full recovery to Justice Ginsburg.