Comments on: Today’s news from SCOTUS

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:22:25 +0000

When I came out of bronx science I could not get assistance or entry.. They wanted women then… I had to live homeless to get the minimum… Sis, who was not academic, has four degrees or so, two children, five houses… I’ve been homeless twice and have not had a raise or cost of living raises in twelve years and will be homeless again. I will never have a family of a home and we are planning a rational suicide so my wife will have enough

That’s all we can do…
And all we can plan for
From SBA, to work, to the legal system, I can’t get backing, assistance, a fair shake as my employer pays me half market rate for 35 plus years…
Rational suicide is all we have and my only way to insure my wife to be OK and get access to my funds…

By: Steve S

Steve S — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 04:38:10 +0000

Frankly, I think Congress should revisit the legislation, and set the Supreme Court to have eight Justices.

We have had all manner of strife and division and national angst over so many critical 5-4 rulings, and the resultant near-monarchial power of that 9th, unelected Justice. With an eight-member Court, these 5-4 rulings would either become 5-3 rulings, which is near super-majority status and thus far more palatable, or they would be 4-4 rulings which set no precedent and thereby severely limit the scope of the ruling.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 23:27:02 +0000

Junior – You must be thinking of Ginsburg, who is 83. Kagan is only 56.

By: junior

junior — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 23:21:01 +0000

The next term probably won’t see just one new justice nominated. Scalia’s up, of course. But Kagan’s supposed to be getting quite old, and might not last the four years. And while I don’t know anything about Thomas’s physical state, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s thinking about retirement.

By: Geoffrey Britain

Geoffrey Britain — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:42:09 +0000

I expected that the Senate would cave to Obama. I suspect that they have not both because Obama has not nominated a moderate and because approving a liberal would be suicidal. I suspect that Obama has calculated that if Hillary wins she will be able to get the Senate to approve a leftist. While if Trump wins, another Kennedy is doable. What I do not believe is that leopards change their spots and that the GOP Senate is holding to idealistic principles.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:37:01 +0000

Kennedy seems to want to balance the Court, make sure that things don’t go too far into one camp or the other. In a normal job that’d be fine. But the Supreme Court is supposed to guide the entire judicial system, and that requires clear, consistent rulings. The Supreme Court used to construct rules and tests that could be applied by lower courts. They might be revisited or refined every few decades, but in the meantime they could be used as guides. There’s no value in reading a Supreme Court decision that’s based on balancing competing judicial philosophies, and there’s no way to apply their reasoning to other cases. Possibly the worst consequence is that there’s no way a lawyer can rule out the possibility of success using any conceivable strategy, so nothing is too outlandish to be tried.

By: parker

parker — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:51:07 +0000

Nothing will change when it comes to bho’s executive overreach. He will continue to ignore any ruling that should chastise a principled POTUS while sternly admonishing the court’s ruling and the evil gop. The U of T ruling was baked in the cake with Scalia gone.

The 14th is a bludgeon as interpreted by the oracles at SCOTUS. Its not discrimination to have standards for admission, especially when it is blatant discrimination to show racial, ethnic, and gender preference to pet victim classes in the name of diversity. Tribalism ain’t the way.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:33:47 +0000

Oldflyer:

The injunction of the lower court was already in effect against some of his orders. This continued that.

By: Oldflyer

Oldflyer — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:07:46 +0000

I inadvertently heard a minute or two of Obama’s analysis of the immigration ruling. I am sure that he said that, although he could not issue additional Executive Orders, the ones in effect are not affected.

Could that be? Or is he just advertising that he will do as he wishes regardless of the law?