The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
ITT, I announce my detailed obamacare/scotus predictions
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 27th, 2012 1:52 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo so detailed that you may think I got a tip from someone. As you'll see when I inevitably get some stuff wrong tomorrow, this isn't the case.
The Healthcare Cases
Anti-Injunction Act doesn't bar review, 9-0. Mandate: upheld, 6-3, in an opinion authored by Roberts. The opinion will uphold the mandate under the Commerce power, not N&P, as a regulation of means of payment for a service that everyone buys. Much will be made of the uniqueness of healthcare/health insurance, and the point that the difference between requiring insurance at the point of sale/care and a purchase of insurance prior to obtaining care is just a matter of timing. Breyer will concur in the judgment, arguing that (A) the mandate could be upheld under N&P as necessary to make the regulations of insurers work, (B) the majority's limitations on mandates are too narrow. RBG will join that opinion in full; Kagan and Soto may join no part of it, or just part A. Scalia will write a very angry dissent, taking Breyer to task (it's not proper) and taking Roberts to task for creating what he'll say is an artificial rule that's entirely of the Court's creation and will break down over time. Alito will write a better dissent, also honing in on the majority's line between permissible mandates and impermissible ones. Thomas will write a very broad dissent that will be unresponsive to anything Breyer or Roberts says, and will say that generations of Commerce precedents are wrong. In years to come, people will look back at the oral argument and be amazed at how badly the commentators misread it.
On the Medicaid expansion, upheld 7-2, with Roberts writing that part of the opinion as well, and Scalia in dissent, joined by Thomas, who may or may not add his own dissent.
Severability's never reached.
Alvarez. Alvarez wins 5-4, in an opinion authored by Kennedy or Kagan. If Kennedy's, it'll be turgid and awful; if Kagan's, it will be the first notable majority opinion of her career. Roberts will write the lead dissent. Alito might add a dissent of his own.
Finally, First American Financial, which could upend standing law but won't. I actually have two predictions as to how this could go down. Both are basically the same on the law; only the result changes. Prediction One. Thomas was originally assigned the majority opinion in this case, but he lost Kennedy. He writes a dissent, saying no injury and no standing. It won't be very good, and I'm not sure if Scalia or Roberts will take the time to chime in with dissents of their own. I think one of them probably does. Kennedy writes an opinion for himself alone. He says that being denied a right to a kickback-free-transaction is, itself, an injury. The four liberals, in an opinion authored by Breyer, say that Congress can presume injury in fact (worse price, worse service) and that the courts have to abide by that presumption. Prediction Two. Thomas writes a plurality opinion saying there's no standing. Soto (writing) and Kagan concur in the judgment, writing that Congress can presume injury, but only in states where the price of title insurance varies. In Missouri, it's fixed, so the presumption of economic harm makes no sense in this case. Breyer (writing) and Ginsburg dissent, saying that the presumption applies even here (worse services or something). Kennedy dissents on his "kickbacks are injuries" theory and says he disavows everything Soto and Breyer say. The end result - the Court rejects 5-4 the presumed injuries proposition, but holds that there is standing under RESPA w/o a showing of injury of fact if you're in a state that doesn't have fixed title insurance rates. No broader implications for standing under other statutes. |
 |
Date: June 17th, 2013 8:35 PM Author: stimulating crystalline chad antidepressant drug (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#23417377) |
Date: June 27th, 2012 1:56 PM Author: umber sanctuary Very plausible. I hope the mandate and medicaid go the other way though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20968419) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:04 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo no chance on medicaid but I give your hopes on the mandate a 30% chance of coming true. I don't think Roberts has much, if any, interest in limiting federal power - I also think he buys the government's arguments - and Kennedy just doesn't want to be a dissenter. Roberts will husband his legitimacy for something bigger - bigger to him anyway - and that's rolling back Grutter and ultimately dismantling large parts of the Voting Rights Act and Title VII. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20968471) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:06 PM Author: umber sanctuary Strange. Why does he care more about those things than economic regulations? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20968486) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:16 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo I'm kind of this way myself. I think the fed government should regulate the national economy; I'm not confident in the ability of the fed government to solve national economic problems, but more so than I am in a hodgepodge of state laws. On the other hand, state-mandated AA just freaks me (and Roberts) out. especially in the context of voting, where, unbeknownst to practically everyone in this country, the Voting Rights Act has been amended and construed to require states to draw a number of districts that are safe seats for minority candidates, proportionate to minority numbers. besides that's being just viscerally noxious and uncalled for, terrible for our politics, inequitable in its privileging of select racial minorities over other underrepresented groups, etc., it's utterly inconsistent with our madisonian winner-take-all system (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20968548) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:18 PM Author: avocado motley skinny woman To be fair,
(Pumo authoritatively speaking for Chief Justice John Roberts on the internet)
I think we're /thread here. |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:20 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo you read parents involved, right? and the stuff he wrote in DOJ in the 80s? EDIT: and LULAC, where he wrote that race-based districting was a "sordid business" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20968572) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:23 PM Author: avocado motley skinny woman To be fair,
I don't disagree with your suggestion about what Roberts probably thinks about AA, nor do I (strongly) disagree re: your conclusion about how Obamacare could go down.
I just think it's strange and retarded to try to connect the two, or to suggest that there is any reason to suspect that Roberts is considering the former in casting his vote re the latter. |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:26 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo yes yes, I concede that below (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20968609) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:15 PM Author: avocado motley skinny woman To be fair,
Yeah bro, taking down Affirmative Action programs is obviously a much bigger deal from both a practical and theoretical perspective than restoring some semblance of sanity to the Court's laughable CC jurisprudence and keeping the structural concept of federalism on life support for at least a little while longer.
Let me ask you a question: are you retarded or do you just pretend to be on the internet? |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:17 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo bigger deal to Roberts. are you reading-challenged
also, a restriction on mandates wouldn't "restor[e] a semblance of sanity" to CC jurisprudence; it'd be a restriction on something that Congress has only done once, ever, changing absolutely nothing about CC jurisprudence as it stands today |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:18 PM Author: avocado motley skinny woman To be fair,
No, because he's not retarded. This decision could come down either way re: mandate, but it won't be because Roberts is saving up his life essence to give a more massive facial to Grutter. That's just dumb. |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:20 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo fair, it's not bc he's saving his life essence, I take that back. Roberts thinks the government is right in this case. He also does care way more about race than the feds' power to economically regulate. he cares about federalism, but only from the side of the states, not bc he sees it as a structural protection of individual rights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20968570) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:22 PM Author: avocado motley skinny woman To be fair,
So your argument basically comes down to "I think Roberts will vote to uphold because he buys the government's argument."
I don't think that's implausible.
I do think that's slightly different than saying "Roberts will vote to uphold because he is already plotting his future takedown of Title VII/AA programs", which - true or not - I think is irrelevant to this analysis. |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:25 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo yes, I think, based on oral argument, votes Roberts has cast over the years (like Comstock), and his avoidance, in certain cases (NAMUDNO, Arizona) of getting the Court into political malestroms, he'll vote to uphold the mandate. I take what I said back, he's not behaving tactically in upholding this so he can obliterate Title VII later. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20968606) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:27 PM Author: avocado motley skinny woman To be fair,
Then I change my position to "good thread, decent prediction, I hope you're wrong." |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:28 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo comments on alvarez and first am? I can't see how first am could just be a 5-4 no standing vote and take this long. and kennedy was on the fence in argument, so I have to think he fell over onto the wrong side of the fence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20968621) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:30 PM Author: avocado motley skinny woman To be fair,
I suspect this as well for the reasons you just cited, but I will be seriously pissed if Thursday rolls around and Obamacare/First Am both come out fucked. What a shitty way to end the term. |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:36 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo Yeah but like I said, First Am won't fuck up standing law in general, just RESPA. And you won't even be able to Marks it and create some random infringement of faux-fiduciary duty = injury rule, because that's not really narrower than presumed injuries, just different - well, unless the libs join that part of the Kennedy opinion, but I can't see how you'd get a majority for something that stupid and fuzzy. Breyer and Soto at argument were all about Congress making findings and presuming injuries, which at least is administrable, you just create some standard about how deferentially you review the findings and go from there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20968671) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 2:07 PM Author: Gold medicated casino foreskin pretty credited (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20968498) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 4:50 PM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20969592) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 10:00 AM Author: Adventurous Silver Stage Water Buffalo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#20974376) |
|
Date: July 14th, 2013 2:15 PM Author: Swashbuckling Cuckold Knife WGWAG WGWAG ZIMMERHERO WINS LETS POST MORE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#23636141) |
|
Date: July 14th, 2013 2:15 PM Author: Swashbuckling Cuckold Knife WGWAG WGWAG ZIMMERHERO WINS LETS POST MORE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1980578&forum_id=2#23636142) |