Supreme Court

Why big fierce Supreme Court nominees are rare

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

free speechJonathan Turley – Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on why the most creative and productive individuals are often disfavored in our modern confirmation system.  With the announcement of the new nominee this evening by President Donald Trump, we will have the state of a counter-intuitive process that favors those who are the least forthcoming or open about their views.

Here is the column: 

In his influential book, “Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare,” ecologist Paul Colinvaux explained that big animals are top predators but require more food and energy to survive. Smaller animals require less of both, and present less of a target to predators, and therefore tend to survive.

The same is true for Supreme Court nominees. Most are not especially remarkable in their prior rulings or writings. They are selected largely for their ease of confirmation and other political criteria. Big fierce minds take too much time and energy to confirm, so White House teams look for jurists who ideally have never had an interesting thought or written an interesting thing in their increasingly short careers. Continue reading →

Victory! Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Steal Money From The Innocent

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

courtJack Burns – Colorado, like most states, forces convicted criminals to pay court costs, fees, and restitution after they’ve been found guilty. But the question arises, “What happens when someone who’s been found guilty, has paid their dues, and then has their convictions overturned on appeal? Do they get their money back?” Not in many states, like Colorado. But all of that has changed after a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The state not stealing money from innocent people sounds like common sense, right? Well, unfortunately, in the land of the free, it was necessary for SCOTUS to step in and tell the greedy state that they do not have a right to steal people’s money.

According to Forbes,

defendants, Shannon Nelson and Louis Madden, were convicted for sexual offenses and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in court costs, fees and restitution. Between her conviction and later acquittal, the state withheld $702 from Nelson’s inmate account, while Madden paid Colorado $1,977 after his conviction. When their convictions were overturned, Nelson and Madden demanded their money back.

Colorado refused, even after the plaintiffs won in a state-level appellate court. The state, instead, insisted that if they wanted their money back, they’d have to file a claim under the Exoneration Act, forcing the defendants to once again prove their innocence to retrieve their funds. The plaintiffs appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, who sided with the citizens in a 7-1 ruling, declaring Colorado’s law unconstitutional.

Continue reading →

Is the Supreme Court Irrelevant?

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

supreme courtCharles Hugh Smith – With the passing of Justice Scalia, the media has embarked on a frenzy of speculation about the political battles that are part and parcel of the President nominating a replacement Supreme Court justice.

While the political chum makes for good copy, the bigger question is rarely (if ever) asked: is the Supreme Court even relevant to the truly significant issues facing the nation?

The conventional view is that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is always relevant, for the obvious reason that it provides the ultimate interpretation of the law of the land.

But this simplistic view overlooks long periods in the nation’s history when the Supreme Court was largely irrelevant to the pressing issues of the era. In some periods, the Court rubber stamped a Status Quo in desperate need of profound political reform.

For example, the current court’s ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC allows unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations–effectively distorting (or in an unvarnished word, destroying) democracy as a functioning institution.

In other eras, the key issues were not decidable by court cases or jurisprudence.

Continue reading →

King v. Burwell Decision Changes Nothing For Obamacare Repeal

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

courtJim DeMint – This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of King v. Burwell which maintains, contrary to the plain language of the law, subsidies are available to those who purchase insurance through federal health insurance exchanges set up for states which opted not to create their own. This doesn’t change the responsibility of Congress to repeal Obamacare.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, pointed to the farce of the majority’s ruling at the beginning of their dissent:

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.

Nevertheless, the White House is quite pleased the court has stepped in to plug yet another “crack in the dam” on behalf of the administration. President Obama proudly proclaimed, “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

Less enthused are the millions of people across the nation paying more for their health insurance because of the laughably misnamed Affordable Care Act, as well as those who wish they could have kept their old plans, as the president falsely assured them they would.

The six justices in the majority—Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan—relied on the puzzling reasoning that since the overall purpose of the law was to put people into insurance exchanges, a decision which struck down the availability of subsidies for those who purchase insurance through the federal exchanges would be contrary to legislative intent and thus undesirable.

Continue reading →

Jonathan Turley ~ Goodbye Hobby Lobby, Hello Halbig: Get Ready For An Even Greater Threat To Obamacare

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

“Where Hobby Lobby exempts only closely held corporations from a portion of the ACA rules, Halbig could allow a mass exodus from the program. And like all insurance programs, it only works if large numbers are insured so that the risks are widely spread. Halbig could leave Obamacare on life support — and lead to another showdown in the Supreme Court.” J Turley

jonathanTurleyBelow is my column today in the Los Angeles Times on a little discussed case that presents a far greater threat to Obamacare than did Hobby Lobby. The Hobby Lobby case is a huge blow for the Administration in terms of one of the most prominent provisions of the Act and recognizing religious rights for corporations. However, it is more of a fender bender for the ACA. Halbig could be a train wreck of a case if it goes against the Administration. We are expecting a ruling any day and the panel is interesting: Judges Harry T. Edwards (a Carter appointee), Thomas B. Griffith (a George W. Bush appointee), and A. Raymond Randolph (a George H.W. Bush appointee). In oral argument, Edwards was reportedly highly supportive of the Administration’s argument while Randolph was very skeptical. That leaves Griffith. It could go 2-1 either way, though in my view the interpretive edge goes to the challengers for the reasons discussed below. This case however is largely a statutory interpretation case, though it has the same separation of powers allegations of executive overreach that we have seen in other recent cases.

Now that the Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, the legal fight over the Affordable Care Act will shift a few blocks away to another Washington courtroom, where a far more fundamental challenge to Obamacare is about to be decided by the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Indeed, if Hobby Lobby will create complications for Obamacare, Halbig vs. Burwell could trigger a full cardiac arrest.

The Halbig case challenges the massive federal subsidies in the form of tax credits made available to people with financial need who enroll in the program. In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges “established by the state.” Continue reading →