Also, the ACA does not violate the Constitution. Duh.
Reader Interactions
56Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
T R E 4 5 O N
Optimism opens the door to great things.
Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.
“And when the Committee says to “report your income,” that could mean anything!
They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.
Accountability, motherfuckers.
A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.
They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.
A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.
JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?
Following reporting rules is only for the little people, apparently.
Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.
Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?
Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.
Tick tock motherfuckers!
You can’t love your country only when you win.
It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.
🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵
We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.
Second rate reporter says what?
Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.
I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.
Thanks for reminding me that Van Jones needs to be slapped.
Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.
David in NY
You mean “High[er] court …” Have yet to hear from the “High court” itself.
J
Great result, even if it should be obvious and non-controversial to anyone who knows even the basics of constitutional law and the relevant Supreme Court precedents.
Even the uber-conservative, GWBush appointee, and former Scalia clerk Judge Sutton got on board the constitutionality train. His concurring opinion is a little annoying reluctant about it, but he gets there.
Valdivia
yep what J @ 2 said…
Han's Solo
Which constitution? The one we learn about in civics class or the one teabaggers think God wrote on the seventh day?
Yutsano
Meh. I’m not gonna quibble about how he got there. I did sort of read it as a challenge to his old boss daring to overrule him. That should be fun.
PeakVT
Since the “High” Court bends the Constitution to its will on a regular basis, it remains to be seen if the ACA will ultimately stand. But having another precedent to overturn may give Kennedy a pause, though it won’t bother the four reactionaries.
Linda Featheringill
J #2
Better reluctant than never.
I have always suspected that the Obama White House tried very hard to see that this bill was constitutionally sound.
Rick Taylor
“High court rules – Water is wet!”
These days, this is a victory. We take what we can get.
hueyplong
Water has been held to be a frothy mix more than once this year. I’ll take the win and wait for the next thing.
harokin
I don’t read Sutton as reluctant, so much as he is trying to meet the plaintiffs on their own terms. He clearly thinks the mandate is a mistake, and clearly thinks courts have no business overturning it.
The dissenting opinion by the retired trial judge is embarrassingly weak.
Reality Check
Just wait until SCOTUS rules, libbies, you’ll do more whining about the final decision than you did with “Citizens United”. Obamacare is going down.
evinfuilt
Give them a chance, the Earth maybe flat after all to Scalia and crew.
Yutsano
And Sarah Palin will be the Republican nominee! Your powers of prediction aren’t real good there bub.
Ash Can
God damned activist judges. We need the 5 conservatives on the SCOTUS to overturn the law of the land. Then everything will be the way it should be.
/Reality Check
eric
I would note the following from Sutton:
The first point proves only that the Supreme Court has considerable discretion in resolving this dispute. It does not free lower court judges from the duty to respect the
language and direction of the Court’s precedents, particularly in view of the reality that this law has the purpose and effect of regulating commerce and in view of the save-No. 10-2388 Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Obama, et al. Page 43 before-destroy imperatives of reviewing facial challenges. The Supreme Court can decide that the legend of Wickard has outstripped the facts of Wickard—that a farmer’s
production only of more than 200 bushels of wheat a year substantially affected interstate commerce. See Wickard, 317 U.S. at 114. A court of appeals cannot. The Supreme Court can decide that Raich was a case only about the fungibility of marijuana, see Raich, 545 U.S. at 18–19, not a decision that makes broader and more extravagant
assertions of legislative power more impervious to challenge. A court of appeals cannot.
TaMara (BHF)
Completely off-topic, but I need some advice. I’m trying to lure a stray, probably feral cat. He has been coming to my house to eat (now both breakfast and dinner, he’s not stupid, premium food here). He’s about 6-9 mos old. He has almost come into my house when I wasn’t looking (not something I want, don’t want to endanger my cats if he’s a carrier of some kind), but he won’t let me get close to him.
I would prefer not to bleed, so I’m ignoring my instinct to just grab him and shove him in the crate.
Because he is still intact and we have a stray cat problem here, I would like to at least get him to the shelter to be neutered. If he is indeed feral, we do have a feral barn cat program here.
Any suggestions? Anyone had any luck in this area? I don’t really have a place to put a cat trap that wouldn’t risk also trapping anyone of my neighbors’ walk-about cats. He is sweet, if a little skinny – and he kind of looks like he may have tangled with a dog recently – no visual injuries but his fur looks slobbered on.
Ash Can
@ Yutsano:
Or his powers of reason. Or comprehension. Or observation. Or common sense. Or moral rectitude. Or…
eric
Formatting Fail — here is the money graf in full
The first point proves only that the Supreme Court has considerable discretion in resolving this dispute. It does not free lower court judges from the duty to respect the language and direction of the Court’s precedents, particularly in view of the reality that this law has the purpose and effect of regulating commerce and in view of the save-before-destroy imperatives of reviewing facial challenges. The Supreme Court can decide that the legend of Wickard has outstripped the facts of Wickard—that a farmer’s production only of more than 200 bushels of wheat a year substantially affected interstate commerce. See Wickard, 317 U.S. at 114. A court of appeals cannot. The Supreme Court can decide that Raich was a case only about the fungibility of marijuana, see Raich, 545 U.S. at 18–19, not a decision that makes broader and more extravagant assertions of legislative power more impervious to challenge. A court of appeals cannot.
ETA: Note “legend of Wickard” and “extravagant assertions”
Yutsano
There’s a term for folks like that.
Republicans.
BruceK
And this breaking news just in: the sun set in the west tonight. Tune in tomorrow as our crack news team investigates whether the sun will rise in the east.
Rosalita
@Tamara #16
Does your town/city have a animal welfare group? I volunteer for the cat program at one here in CT and we have people who will trap feral cats, spay/neuter and then release them…unless he/she becomes tame enough then maybe get adopted?
Omnes Omnibus
FWIW I know Judge Graham and have worked with/for him while clerking in the past. He is very conservative, but also principled and fair. I don’t remotely agree with his reasoning here, but I would never say that he is a hack. Also too, he looks a lot like a giant Wilford Brimley.
eric
I would simply caution, that the Court found that it is constitutional, not that it will be constitutional.
harokin
[email protected]: “The third point is the critical one: Does the Commerce Clause contain an action/inaction dichotomy that limits congressional power? No.”
amk
@ Reality Check – Don’t you use to troll that politico site ? I seem to remember your moronic predictions there when I went there by accident.
harokin
[email protected]: Do you know if he has full time clerks now?
What bothered me about Graham’s dissent is 1) his immediate and repeated invocation of Federalist 78, 2) his gotcha use of congressional findings to claim that the market at issue is health insurance, not health care services, and 3) his citation of the subsequent state laws purporting to make the mandate illegal.
eric
harokin: I think it is only critical if you are forced (as the Appellate Court is) to accept the lack of limits in the first point…If, for example you rejected the notion of aggregated actors to a substantial effect on interstate commerce, I don’t think action/inaction matters anymore. or you went to the Thomas school of commerce clause jurisprudence, then action/inaction really doesnt matter. that is my quick reading of it….
kay
It means Obama can force you to eat spinach, reality check.
Or that’s what the actual, sitting, in-office Ohio attorney general told Fox News viewers.
What did conservatives do to that man to make him repeat such stupid, embarrassing, dishonest things? Is he being held hostage?
He was never all that bright, but he was once a relatively sane, average, mediocre person. Gone. All gone.
pragmatism
tim, you’re not supposed to report, remark upon or acknowledge in any way a decision which upholds ACA. only the ones that strike parts of it down. your repentance is three stalin denouncements and one broccoli mandate refudiation.
Xenos
RC: be careful what you wish for. If the ACA is going down, it is taking decades of settled law with it. This would not be a good thing.
Roger Moore
@Han’s Solo:
Don’t be silly. God didn’t write the Constitution on the Seventh Day; he rested that day. God handed the Constitution and the
Ten ComandmentsBill of Rights down toMosesGeorge Washington when he climbed to the top of MountSinaiVernon.Tsulagi
As even comment #1 pointed, among highs it’s an -er court, not the –est.
If appealed to the Supremes, would love to see Bachmann esq. arguing for the plaintiffs. Would watch that on pay-per-view.
TaMara (BHF)
@21 Rosalita: It is a little tricky, because there is a household in the neighborhood who feeds all the strays, kind of thinks of them as their own, but do nothing to make sure they don’t repopulate the neighborhood, so I have to do this on the sly.
If he wasn’t eating at my house, I probably would let matters be, but he seems to think he’s mine now, as such I feel the need to help the little guy out.
Xantar
I am not a lawyer, so can somebody break down Graham’s dissent to me? The rest of the opinion reads like most legal stuff I’ve seen which is to say it breaks down the problem, figures out what the controlling precedents are, and then logically goes through the steps to arrive at a conclusion. I may or may not agree with everything stated, but I can follow the thinking.
Graham’s dissent reads like a blog rant which meanders all over the place. Again, I’m not a lawyer and don’t read these things regularly. So maybe I’m just missing something.
Linda Featheringill
Tamara #16
The feral [maybe] cat:
I would imagine that if you called the no-kill shelter you might get some very practical advice on how to capture the beast.
[And yes, you are a good person.]
TaMara (BHF)
And I’d like to know which of my cats told him meals are at 7 am and 6pm – because that is exactly when he shows up, when I feed my cats (indoors mind you).
Kirk Spencer
Don’t get too wrapped about this decision. Remember that there are three more appeals courts hearing this case in some form. At least one will also go to an en banc hearing.
That’s because the Supreme Court WILL hear this, but refused to do so till all the intermediate stages were complete. So that’s at least 12 and (depending on circuits going en banc) as many as 100 justices all of whom will have a chance to put their points into the discussion.
Note, just as an indicator, that this decision was the opinion, a concurrence, and a dissent. Law students will be digging through this for decades.
NonyNony
kay:
I think he’s afraid of losing his job again like he did when he lost to Sherrod Brown in ’06. He learned his lesson – by not being conservative enough he was voted out of office and replaced by someone more liberal than him. So Goddamnit he’s going to be even MORE conservative since that’s clearly what the voters want.
Wait …
Feh. Dewine is able to present whatever image he wants to present. He was amiable and dull-witted when he thought voters wanted amiable and dull-witted. Now that he thinks they want stupid and loud he can be stupid and loud.
Omnes Omnibus
@ harokin: He should still have clerks. I don’t think he is retired; I think he is on senior status. When I was clerking in the Southern District of Ohio, there were some right-wing hacks there (cough/Smith/cough). Graham was always more of an old fashioned conservative (political and judicial) who would occasionally turn out pro-little guy or pro-defense (criminal) opinion when the law compelled that result.
Han's Solo
Roger Moore – I heard some Republican saying something like, “Obama is going to take out God,” because Obama was going to take the rights that GOD gave us away.
Really, the founding father’s gave us those rights. They fought for them and earned them; God didn’t have anything to do with it. That the party that claims to love the constitution above all doesn’t realize that boggles the mind.
kay
I sort of disagree. Unless the image he intended to present was as a person who does not believe one word coming out of his own mouth.
It’s cringe-worthy, watching. Just a complete, humiliating capitulation to the looniest members of the Right. Not one word, he believes.
Ugh. I hope the AG spot was worth it. I don’t know how anything he says has any credibility whatsoever, after that.
nancydarling
Tamara, my sister trapped a feral cat and her kitten with a trap from the humane society. Alas, the mom had some untreatable disease and had to be put down, but Baby Kitty (that’s her name now) is alive and well living the life of Riley. My sister was in tears when she told me the mom had to be put down. She said “I never even got to touch her.” She had been feeding her for some time. Call your humane society and see if they will lend you a trap and you are on your way! Baby Kitty is a little skittish about being held, but is bringing my sis and her old man cat, Gordo, lots of joy.
nancydarling
Tamara, I just finished reading your post. I would go ahead and use the trap at night. You can get up early and let any wrongfully incarcerated cats free.
kay
Look in there for the words “unconstitutional”.
He lists thereasons that it’s purely political. Again: ugh. Pathetic.
Kirk Spencer
Xantar @34
The way to read it, really, is to read Graham’s dissent BEFORE you read Sutton’s concurrence. Martin lays out the main case. Graham complains because dammit the mandate isn’t a tax and besides they can’t make everyone purchase someone without stretching the power of the Commerce clause all out of proportion. He also says that the critical precedence upon which Martin and Sutton rely is outdated nonsense.
Sutton then explains why a rose by any other name, sorry, a tax is a tax is a tax, and gives examples of other times the commerce clause has been used to force purchase or to apply universally.
Then Sutton twists the knife in Graham’s complaint (and at the same time points out why this will go to the supreme court) when he points out that the Supreme Court can reverse precedence, appeals courts can’t.
That, by the way, is why Graham’s dissent reads as it does. It isn’t following precedence, it’s trying to reverse and overcome it. But since the appeals court doesn’t allow this he can’t write it the way you’re used to seeing this sort of thing (supreme court decisions) so he has to dance around it.
Thoughtcrime
CLASS WAR!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama-picks-fight-with-gop-over-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/2011/03/03/AGHTMsqH_blog.html
kay
Just so you know, I’m just idly musing on DeWine’s humiliating groveling, lying and pandering on Fox re: the commerce clause. I don’t care at all about the state of the conservative soul.
Xecky Gilchrist
Also, the ACA does not violate the Constitution.
As may be. But what about the CONSTUSHUN?
Roger Moore
@Xecky Cilchrist:
Sadly, I think the CONSTUSHUN says whatever the wingnuts want it to say today, so ACA definitely violates it. I just hope the Supreme Court decides that the relevant standard is the Constitution.
Rosalita
@Tamara #36
Well maybe put the trap out at dinner or breakfast? Better your chances of getting the right guy?
General Stuck
oBAMMA SELLOUT!! BOOGY PULPIT TACTICIAN FAIL!! STRINGS! STRINGS! STRINGS ATTACHED.
WHY WHY WHY?
agrippa
John Cole:
I like Balloon Juice; it is a good blog and I read almost every day
Ken
Kirk Spencer @45:
I believe the punchline is usually “pound on the table,” not “dance around it.”
General Stuck
DEEP THOUGHT
If Obama had not passed HCR, we would have been spared the worry that courts could say it was unconstitutional. Is Obama to blame for our angst?
Suffern ACE
@54-Not really. The problem of the Roberts Court would be the Roberts court.
trollhattan
The following, lifted from the concurring opinion, sets up some straw men then knocks them down. I especially like, “Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law.”