Hey Lawyers

[Dim Bulb]

Just read the ACA decision. Roberts presents it as a straightforward statutory interpretation question under Chevron: Is it ambiguous and is the interpretation made by the agency reasonable?

Scalia, Alito and Thomas disagree. Scalia says there is no possibility of ambiguity and that the agency's interpretation is totally unreasonable.

Strikes me as a pretty judicially conservative decision. Very conservative, actually.

Your barrister take?

[Overbrook]

Screw your "barrister take". This is the real world.

Just read the ACA decision. Roberts presents it as a straightforward statutory interpretation question under Chevron: Is it ambiguous and is the interpretation made by the agency reasonable?

Scalia, Alito and Thomas disagree. Scalia says there is no possibility of ambiguity and that the agency's interpretation is totally unreasonable.

Strikes me as a pretty judicially conservative decision. Very conservative, actually.

Your barrister take?

The court upheld the law because it would be complete chaos in this country if they struck down the law. Think about it.

Also, what a surprise that Scalia and Judge Slappy, two fucking assholes bought and paid for by the Koch brothers, voted against the law.

In short, fuck you Republicans. Could these assholes be any worse losers. Boner's already promising more bullshit. What a fucking toolbag.

[Dim Bulb]

Carl Llewellyn would be proud

The court upheld the law because it would be complete chaos in this country if they struck down the law. Think about it.

Also, what a surprise that Scalia and Judge Slappy, two fucking assholes bought and paid for by the Koch brothers, voted against the law.

In short, fuck you Republicans. Could these assholes be any worse losers. Boner's already promising more bullshit. What a fucking toolbag.

He said all decisions are outcome determinative. Judges decide what they're going to do then wrap the law around it. This decision is an easy one though. Straightforward statutory construction issue.

[Riccardo]

No mention of the raisin case?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...rmer/28475623/

Nitwit communist Sotomayor thinks it's ok for the government to steal.

[Dim Bulb]

Seems like an equally conservative opinion

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...rmer/28475623/

Nitwit communist Sotomayor thinks it's ok for the government to steal.

Judicially conservative.

Sort of wondering. What makes Sotomayor a communist? Has she argued in favor of state control of all means of production? Steel factories? Apple computers? CPG companies? She wants the state to own all of them? I must've missed that.

[RSE]

I couldn't care less.

[Birdwatcher]

Actually Roberts went further than Chevron...

Just read the ACA decision. Roberts presents it as a straightforward statutory interpretation question under Chevron: Is it ambiguous and is the interpretation made by the agency reasonable?

Scalia, Alito and Thomas disagree. Scalia says there is no possibility of ambiguity and that the agency's interpretation is totally unreasonable.

Strikes me as a pretty judicially conservative decision. Very conservative, actually.

Your barrister take?

Roberts actually said Chevron does not apply, but the whole intent of the law was that all Americans should benefit from the exchanges, as noted in other places in the law. He actually eliminated the chance of contesting this aspect of the law again, with Chevron there would have been a chance for further attacks.

After Citizen's United I thought the republicans had full control of SCOTUS, but as several other conservative appointees in the past. Roberts seems to be moving to the moderate logical position, rather than following ideology right wingers would like. Scalia and Alito are right wing pawns who only follow their ideology, Roberts looks like he is looking at the real effects of his decisions and that can be sobering. I wonder if he still would vote for CU now that he is more seasoned in his role.

[Riccardo]

Ok more specific

Judicially conservative.

Sort of wondering. What makes Sotomayor a communist? Has she argued in favor of state control of all means of production? Steel factories? Apple computers? CPG companies? She wants the state to own all of them? I must've missed that.

She's a raisin communist. Better?

[Eagle Road]

I can whole heartedly agree with this statement,


The court upheld the law because it would be complete chaos in this country if they struck down the law. Think about it.

Everything else about this law is a complete and utter cluster fuck regardless if you are a R,D, I or something else.

Maybe next time one side of the chamber decides to unilaterally change the landscape of the whole country they will at least read it first?

[TerpEagle]

Roberts actually said Chevron does not apply, but the whole intent of the law was that all Americans should benefit from the exchanges, as noted in other places in the law. He actually eliminated the chance of contesting this aspect of the law again, with Chevron there would have been a chance for further attacks.

After Citizen's United I thought the republicans had full control of SCOTUS, but as several other conservative appointees in the past. Roberts seems to be moving to the moderate logical position, rather than following ideology right wingers would like. Scalia and Alito are right wing pawns who only follow their ideology, Roberts looks like he is looking at the real effects of his decisions and that can be sobering. I wonder if he still would vote for CU now that he is more seasoned in his role.

Here's a take from Slate on his shift. This was written before the King decision.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...is_siding.html