Home / General / Friday Links: The Repulsion of the Moopish Invasion Edition

Friday Links: The Repulsion of the Moopish Invasion Edition

Comments
/
/
/
938 Views

rwfrvc0sxhs8srxxa0hl

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • re: the first link. I think we now know where JenBob got his “Roberts is a Queer” fever dream from: The Blaze.

    • Snarki, child of Loki

      If Roberts is vulnerable to blackmail, he should do the courageous thing and resign. Or be impeached and removed, if he’s too chickenshit. Problem is, the House Teabagger-GOP is too chickenshit to vote for impeachment.

      Why, it’s like they’re Nancy’s bitches or something. “Nancy Boys”, if you will.

      • ploeg

        Not that impeachment won’t be suggested.

  • Nick never Nick

    This is good news, and I’m happy for the people who will benefit from not being screwed over in pursuit of a conservative paradise. However, I can’t help but feel that all of the public relief that a judge actually behaved like a judge shows where the real problem is. This is one instance in which a conservative actor decided that their role had duties and expectations that could not be subsumed to movement conservatism — everyone’s relief shows how rare that has been in recent years. Roberts’ honesty in one case is not an antidote for bad-faith government since 1992.

    But like I said, at least millions of people won’t be sacrificed to the need of a large chunk of Americans to be assholes.

  • Mike G

    “Mr. King said that he was not really worried about the outcome of the case, King v. Burwell, because as a Vietnam veteran, he has access to medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

    King’s situation, and the fact that he openly gloats about it, makes him pretty much the definition of an asshole.

    • Barry Freed

      Pretty much, yup.

    • Karen24

      In the middle of the “King” decision, Roberts notes that the “three plaintiffs do not want to buy health insurance” and further states that the subsidies reduce the price for such insurance below the threshold for the exemption, which translates to “the plaintiff objects to the government making a smart decision really cheap.” This is about as close as a normal judicial opinion gets to saying “the plaintiff is an asshole.”

    • Rob in CT

      What a total shit.

  • sam

    Here’s a Scalia question –

    Scalia, has, historically, been relatively “good” on first amendment issues. It’s one of the areas where you’ll often see him and Ginsburg concurring on opinions. How would he square his “we can only use the text on the page without textual context or legislative intent” in King with the fact that the first amendment, by its literal text, is limited to laws passed by Congress?

    Obviously he couldn’t. It’s just an obvious example of his “principled jurisprudence” being nothing more than a continual shifting of goalposts to suit his own personal politics and peccadilloes.

    I feel like years ago he was better at hiding this behind well-written rhetoric. Now that he seems to have lost his touch, poetry-wise, he just sounds unhinged.

    • rea

      the fact that the first amendment, by its literal text, is limited to laws passed by Congress?

      Well nowadays, 14th amendment incorporationism isn’t all that controversial.

      • Davis X. Machina

        Tell that to Thomas…

        • Todd

          You may find him at one of the state-established churches he favors.

          • Davis X. Machina

            So he’s four votes short… for now.

    • SNF

      To be fair, people generally consider constitutional and statutory interpretation to be different things.

      • sam

        of course, but I’m just playing “logical conclusioning to its bitter end” here.

        Again, I almost never agree with Scalia (except in those random first amendment and “non-controversial” cases when he’s basically pairing up with RBG), but I remember during law school many moons ago appreciating the quality (if not the substance) of his writing -he had, in most cases, a coherency to his arguments that hung together very well, even if their initial premise was one that I thought was wrong.

        Now his opinions read like he’s that ranty racist uncle we’re all embarrassed about but who mom still keeps inviting to Thanksgiving.

  • j_kay

    Whom flipped from granting cert on this to being anti-Moops?

    It’s like it’s become weirdly more liberal court with yesterday’s PRO-labor decision. I

    • Richard Gadsden

      Probably Kennedy. Though, having read his opinion, it could be that Roberts wanted to grant cert to torch the Moops idea sky-high. Getting it out of Chevron deference (from memory, wasn’t there a circuit split on whether it was Chevron or not).

      He might even be trying to edge towards a Denning-esque purposive approach to statutory interpretation. cf, in particular, Magor and St Mellons v Newport Borough Council (1952): “We do not sit here to pull the language of Parliament to pieces and make nonsense of it…
      We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis.” – (though that was overturned on appeal to the House of Lords).

      • pseudonymous in nc

        There’s a piece at SCOTUSblog along these lines, talking about Roberts’s dislike of agency deference, and the suggestion that he prefers a role for the Court in construing intent over one that either punts to agencies or deals in textualist nonsense.

  • Srsly Dad Y

    R Gadsden — you make a good point about the cert grant that I haven’t seen mentioned. A liberal Court might have taken up King just to make sure the Moops argument didnt infect any other circuit panels outside DC and gum up ACA implementation. We all assumed the cert votes were partisan, but I wonder if one day we might learn otherwise.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      not just gum up the implementation of the ACA, but the court system itself. would be nice, if unlikely, that Roberts just thinks the courts have better things to do than indulge cranks

      • Steve LaBonne

        That doesn’t seem implausible to me. He wants to get on with his long-term strategy of slowly and carefully asphyxiating the regulatory state without most people noticing, and attention-getting clown shows like King are a real detriment to this agenda.

        • Davis X. Machina

          Exactly.

          Disorganized crime mugs you and takes your wallet.
          Organized crime suborns your accountant, takes your business, and torches the store for the insurance.
          Really organized crime has the statutes against larceny removed from the books.

  • matt w

    Toobin:

    Supporters of the Affordable Care Act, starting with President Barack Obama, have generally taken the high road in response to Thursday’s decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the heart of the law.

    Not me LOL

    • Rob in CT

      Yeah, sue me but frankly the people who pushed this blatantly dishonest legal theory in the name of destroying a law providing subsidized health insurance to poor/poorish people deserve to have their noses rubbed in the result.

  • Ken

    If Obergefell v. Hodges goes the way everyone expects, Scalia’s dissent may consist of the word “sodomy” written out 10,000 times with random bold and italic.

    • Re buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.

    • DrDick

      Watching Nino’s head explode twice in one week will be an unmatched delight.

      • Karen24

        You’re going to get your wish. The 14th Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

        • Tybalt

          And Nino’s pissed.

    • Scott Lemieux

      He could hire the guy who wrote the briefs for the ACA troofers!

  • politicalfootball

    Scalia is still sometimes able to shock me. Here he is on the words “such exchange.”

    The Court emphasizes that if a State does not set up an Exchange, the Secretary must establish “such Exchange.” §18041(c). It claims that the word “such” implies that federal and state Exchanges are “the same.” Ante, at 13. To see the error in this reasoning, one need only consider a parallel provision from our Constitution: “The Times,
    Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” Art. I, §4, cl. 1 (emphasis added). Just as the Affordable Care Act directs States to establish Exchanges while allowing the Secretary to establish “such Exchange” as a fallback, the Elections Clause directs state legislatures to prescribe election regulations while allowing Congress to make “such Regulations” as a fallback. Would anybody refer to an election regulation made by Congress as a “regulation prescribed by the state legislature”?

    This is just ridiculous.

    • Gregor Sansa

      I think you mean “applesauce”.

      Seriously; that’s far more shocking than using some silly words. One wonders if Scalia deliberately included the abesimpsonesqe language as cover for such logical howlers.

    • Scott Mc

      I am not a lawyer, so clue me in. Doesn’t the passage he site in the constitution support the reading that the fallback to the State exchanges IS in fact the federal exchange? Perhaps he keeps using that passage, but it does not mean what he thinks it means.

      • sharculese

        Probably neither. Parsing out the meaning of ‘such’ is about as close as you can come to saying ‘I got nothing’ without actually saying it.

      • politicalfootball

        Scalia’s analysis turns on the use of the word “such.” In each case, “such” refers to a thing that is specifically defined.

        “Such exchange,” in Roberts’ reading – and indeed in any sensible reading – refers to the exchange created by the state under the terms of the law. What other exchange could he be talking about?

        Scalia talks about “such Regulation.” The “such” there unambiguously refers to a regulation regarding “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” – and explicitly not to the fact that it was created by the state.

        Scalia, however, says “such” must be specifically referring to a state-created regulation, and not merely a regulation that covers certain topics. In context, this is absurd, and he goes on to show why it’s absurd. Once “such” regulation is rewritten, he asks, “Would anybody refer to an election regulation made by Congress as a ‘regulation prescribed by the state legislature’?

        Nobody would. Nobody, that is, except Scalia, who – remember – has previously specifically said that the attributes of “such” regulation necessarily include that it has been created by the state legislature.

        I’m surprised it took me that many words to explain it. I guess Scalia’s word game was a little more elaborate than I was giving him credit for. But that doesn’t make it any less nonsensical.

  • Gregor Sansa

    Gay marriage, too! Let’s celebrate!

    Then let’s hope Scalia has an aneurism.

    • Scott Mc

      Heads must be exploding. Wouldn’t be sad if one of them were Scalia’s.

      • UncleEbeneezer

        Sad? It would be awesome!! Have “words lost all meaning” to you? ;)

        PS- Hoorah!

        PPS- We may finally get to Peak Wingnut with these decisions. Has there been a worse week for conservatives?

        • Rob in CT

          PPS- We may finally get to Peak Wingnut with these decisions. Has there been a worse week for conservatives?

          Don’t do this to yourself. I’ve been down that path. It leads only to disappointment.

          There is no peak wingnut.

          • UncleEbeneezer

            True. If there’s anything the past few years have taught me, it’s that there are always worse arguments/hysteria/outrage to possibly come. Things that are unimaginable to me today will be the Party line tomorrow.

      • Gregor Sansa

        His dissent says “Pride goeth before a fall.” OK, motherfucker, show us.

        • matt w

          Really? Really? He can’t even quote the Bible right?

          • petesh

            Great catch

            • rea

              Classic Scalia: “Pride goeth before . . . a fall.”

          • Redwood Rhiadra

            Hey, he’s a Catholic. Any fundie will tell you that Catholics don’t even *read* the Bible.

      • sharculese

        The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me

        Sure it isn’t kiddo. We all believe you.

  • Joe_JP

    SSM protected. 5-4.

    Roberts think it is “deeply disheartening” under “government of laws [equal protection etc.], not of men” that SSM is protected.

    I think it is “deeply disheartening” that asshole couldn’t even figure a way to concur in judgment and instead say something like that. If you disagree, fine, but this continual sentiment that people aren’t just wrong but basically unprincipled is getting real old.

    • Scott Lemieux

      And that goes quadruple for the author of Shelby County.

  • Rob in CT

    Giggle.

  • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

    What’s truly amazing in hindsight:
    1) so much effort was expended to block a law that in large measure just expands and improves existing parts of the health care system
    2) Scalia is (and has for some time been) considered the master intellect of movement conservative jurisprudence.
    3) Michael Cannon reacting to the decision with the same grace and quiet dignity as Gene Wilder’s Dr Frankenstein when his first attempt failed. The quotes are out there – they’re quite amusing.
    4) “moops” got this far!
    5) Conservatives are already lamenting how their judges be all squishy and they need to really crack down And enforce the rigid dogmatism…like the Democrats do.

    Pass the gloat sauce.

    • matt w

      Cannon brings up Emperor-for-life Gruber and the HELP bill.

      Cry moar, shithead. Cry moar.

      • Scott Lemieux

        Although unless I missed it he didn’t mention the Doggett letter, perhaps taking the hint from the fact that their dissembling stunk so badly even other troofers wouldn’t touch it.

  • joe from Lowell

    “Roberts told everybody he was just going to be an umpire and call strikes and balls, but now as justice he’s got two results-oriented decisions that go far beyond that role,” said Club For Growth President David McIntosh

    Mmmm, that must be it. Conservative Republican John Roberts ruled this way because he was simply determined to side with the Democrats and support Obamacare.

    • Yankee

      In trade for Obummer’s support for the TPP? Makes slightly more sense than blackmail.

  • Tom Till

    I believe in the Infallibility of Plain Text, so by necessity I believe the following:

    1) Louis threw Lazlo in prison while helping Rick and Ilsa make a clean getaway because that was the Plain Text of the plan Rick gave Louis.
    2) Benjamin never took Elaine out because the Plain Text of his promise to Mrs. Robinson was that he wouldn’t.
    3) Carlo remained Michael’s right-hand man in Las Vegas for years to come because that was the Plain Text of what Michael told Carlo
    4) Han never joined the final attack on the Death Star because the Plain Text of what he told Luke was that it was “suicide” and he’d rather spend his reward money.

    Context is nothing. Plain Text is everything. Don’t ever try to convince me otherwise.

    • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

      Nowhere is this better illustrated than The Bible. Picking a verse at random…Leviticus 20:13 (ASV) “And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

      Meaning: “man-on-man is fine, just don’t sleep over.” It’s as clear as day!

      • Yankee

        “Lie” is telling an untruth. If a man is unfaithful to his partner as if he were a woman, that’s an abomination. If the KJV was good enough for the Apostles, it’s good enough for you.

  • rea

    Well, with great power comes great responsibility, as the Court recently held in Kimble v Marvel Enterprises (Scalia, J. dissented from that holding)

    • Linnaeus

      Kagan’s opinion in that case gave me a few chuckles.

It is main inner container footer text