WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CALLED "THE DEFINITIVE BLOG ON MIAMI CRIMINAL LAW" BY THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE POPE, AND DONALD TRUMP WHO ALSO ONCE SAID IT WAS "REALLY GREAT". POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Thursday, June 25, 2015

CONSERVATIVE MY A--, OBAMACARE STANDS

Justice Roberts shows his true colors as a pragmatist.  Kennedy shows he has federalist leanings on important matters.  SCOTUS upholds the Affordable Care Act.  Kennedy follows up his opinion in a equal opportunity housing case with a vote in favor of the ACA, where he had voted against its constitutionality in a prior case.  Roberts writes with a direct and pragmatic approach.  He basically says that we read the whole law, not just five words.  Roberts says you must look at the intent of the law, not just the technicalities.

On the other hand Scalia says we should no longer call the ACA Obamacare.   It should be called SCOTUS Care.  (He does know how to turn a phrase.)  He calls Roberts opinion a "defense of the indefensible."

With the decision 6-3, this bodes well for Obergfell (same sex marriage).  That will also be 6-3 and Roberts will write on this one too.  Expect an even nastier dissent from Scalia and Thomas.

This court has now made a decided turn to the left.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Roberts wants to be in the correct side of history.

I bet he joins in granting gay marriage. He knows that is where the civilized world is going.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who is completely sick and tired of Brennan and Tunis being rude and nasty to just about everyone?

Dava, if you just one more time start a sentence with...
I don't mean be rude but,..."

Victoria, is there any way you could show some fucking respect for people?

Anonymous said...

President George W. Bush must be going crazy with feelings of conservative betrayal after appointing Chief Justice John Roberts .....

Anonymous said...

He followed the law and not his politics, unlike his brethren. How refreshing!

Anonymous said...

Don't buy the left turn. The ruling was good for the insurance business and the economy. That's what Roberts jumped on--amicus briefs from the healthcare industry and economists.

Anonymous said...

Yup it was all about lobby interests and money on this one, agree with 9:20

Rumpole said...

Good job prof. Limited WI fi here in Patagonia.

The Professor said...

1:02 -

Bush II can not feel any differently than Ike felt about Warren when he was asked what was his greatest mistake as President. Ike said:"I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court." (Referring to Warren and Brennan)

12:12 -

Unfortunately we are both wrong about Thomas on Obergfell. It is disappointing that he could be so right on one, and so wrong on the other. The Kennedy opinion was a compromise to be sure. Kennedy wanted to write and wanted the result, but he did add the 1st Amendment language that will most likely lead to more litigation. It was needed for the majority to gain his support.

Anonymous said...

Disparate impact is the stupidest idea ever. It only makes sense under the presumption that different groups of people (whether grouped by "race" or "gender" or you-name-it) are exactly the same EXCEPT for the identifier that makes them different.

So, if black Americans perform, on average, worse on a history test administered to would-be history teachers in public schools, the test must be discriminatory and is thus illegal. Or if black Americans, on average, score worse on credit checks administered by mortgage lenders, those checks most be discriminatory and illegal... because THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN "BLACK" AND "WHITE" OR "HISPANIC" OR "ASIAN" AMERICANS.

If, in fact, there are innate differences -- be they genetic, cultural, behavioral, etc -- than you will see disparate impact even when there is no discriminatory intent. You will, in fact, see diversity - something we are supposed to celebrate.

Most college kids in Statistics 101 could grasp this concept, but it seems to elude liberals, even on SCOTUS.