And the fact that you don’t understand the law:
As we approach the end of the October 2011 Term, it is hard to think about almost anything other than the Court’s impending health care decision. But there is another developing story that has so far been overlooked. Without much fanfare, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is edging towards what could be its first “perfect” Term before the Supreme Court since at least 1994. With today’s decision in Southern Union Company v. United States, the Chamber has declared victory in all seven of its cases that have reached a clear outcome (two are additionally classified as “other” because the Court avoided addressing the issue at stake on procedural grounds, and in one the Chamber filed on behalf of neither party).
This string of seven straight victories brings the Chamber’s overall win/loss rate before the Roberts Court up to 68% (60 of 88 cases). As we have reported in prior studies, this is significantly higher than the Chamber’s success before the Rehnquist Court of 56% (45 of 80 cases), and dramatically higher than its success rate before the Burger Court, when the Chamber only won 43% (15 of 35) of its cases.
(via)
Violet
So fucking depressing.
CraigoMc
As a licensed attorney: Who the fuck are these guys that John keeps railing about? It seems exactly backwards – the mandate is on solid legal ground, and the arguments against it is purely political. As seen by the fact that virtually no Republican opposed it prior to 2009.
David Koch
No difference btwn Bush and Gore!
Linnaeus
I know we’re all supposed to revere the Supreme Court as some sort of Mount Olympus of legal wisdom, but it’s just comprised of nine more politicians in black robes.
Quincy
The Epps piece linked in the prior Supremes thread said the Conservative justices in the union case gave the impression that they don’t think free rider problems are real. If true, that’s a bad sign for the mandate. And collective action generally.
Omnes Omnibus
It is not a coincidence; there is a right-wing, pro-business majority on the Court. I doubt anyone disputes that. Their orientation and beliefs come out in their decisions because certain arguments and certain precedents are more convincing to them than others. The same is true of liberal judges.
Horrendo Slapp (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.)
@David Koch:
Damn. I was going to say that, but you got here first. But, I swear, if this isn’t enough to shut up the assholes who whine that Obama isn’t good enough, and they might just sit this one out to teach him a lesson, then I don’t know what is. If Rmoney gets his hands on that court, I don’t think we’ll be here as a country in 10 or 15 years.
Baud
@Linnaeus:
Just makes it easier to overrule all their decisions when we take back the court.
Baud
@Horrendo Slapp (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.):
It won’t be. It never is. They are unreachable, and we should stop pretending otherwise.
Mr Stagger Lee
The talk host Norman Goldman suggests maybe a 15 year term for a Supreme Court Justice, and the right of a 2/3rd vote for congress to overturn a SC decision. Also put in clauses for impeachment of a justice for crimes and misdemeanors.
CraigoMc
@Mr Stagger Lee: Justices can be impeached and removed already (only one has ever been impeached, 200 years ago, and he was acquitted). But I would support a limited term for them – 10, 12, 15, whatever. Just not life.
Paula
@Baud:
Well, you say “unreachable”, I say “dumb”.
Just Some Fuckhead
Oops.. wrong thread
Tehanu
Rehnquist dead, O’Connor retired; Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy still there and still screwing the country, after their judicial coup d’etat of 2000. In a just world all five of them would have been hanged for treason. Well, a girl can dream….
Omnes Omnibus
@Mr Stagger Lee:
@CraigoMc: It would be hard to implement a limited term. Stagger them? What does one do with those currently on the Court (aside from shooting them which is not really a viable option)? And so on….
Yutsano
No big. Get Congress and three-fourths of the states to agree and bazinga!
Uhh…what? Congress can just pass the law in a better fashion to remove the unconstitutional objection. How is Goldman committing a basic civics fail?
See point above.
OzoneR
But they totally would let single payer happen.
hilzoy fangirl
Southern Union v. United States also happens to be a very pro-criminal defendant opinion written by Justice Sotomayor. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
El Cid
@Yutsano: Goldman’s point is similar at its root to that of Thomas Jefferson, who correctly pointed out that having an unelected group of men (and now women) decide what is and isn’t possible in a country of law — with the only resort a Constitutional amendment upon any fundamental Sup decision — is despotic.
For good or ill, that’s true almost by definition, particularly given that judicial review was asserted by the Court itself, an assertion which was followed by the other branches.
It’s a fundamental disagreement that there is one unchallengeable, non-democratic body which can determine what is the unconstitutional objection.
The prophet Nostradumbass
Get back to us when you have a clue, Cole.
There, now burns doesn’t have to comment at all.
shortstop
@The prophet Nostradumbass: But he will, just to shriek “GO FUCK YOURSELF!” in that high-pitched whine of his.
Elias
One risk of pushing single payer is that our current Court will decide to make rulings completely irrelevant to the case and probably rule Medicare unconstitutional.
Bob2
Will eemom admit she was wrong?
chopper
@Yutsano:
yeah, judicial review, while not actually stated in the constitution, is the bedrock of the judiciary’s power. without it there’s no real separation of powers here.