dayman

It was reasonable enough for me. Is taking something away that you already get coercive if you don't wish to comply with the expansion of it. In the past the federal government has threatened to take away money or not give it and so on to get states to comply. Highway funding the most obvious example. Title 9. ETc EdIT: Catching a bit of it in the middle and God Verrilli is getting peppered hard by Roberts/Alito/Scalia

Well I was tied up all morning. I'll have some time in the afternoon and definitely later tonight to listen to the entire thing. I guess it could be a fuzzy line depending on what I hear but all in all a judge trying to save as much of a bill that passed the other two branches (the democratically accountable ones) doesn't seem improper. If the heart of the bill is truly ripped out via the court finding it unconstitutional and as a result it doesn't work by it's own scheme then obviously it would be improper for a judge to keep it alive for purely political reasons...then again people don't all agree what would be more politically beneficial for Obama (strike down or upheld)....any way I'll have to watch myself. My gut instincts are that I probably am not going to have a problem with her questions unless she's literally making ridiculous arguments b/c from what I know there is significant reform beyond the mandate/no denial for preexisting injuries...those two are clearly tied together though but the rest of the Bill is at least open to debate. Also, generally speaking once again I want to say people read too much into the oral arguments. Despite the line of questioning...there is another principle that may well swing Kennedy and/or Roberts to uphold the mandate and that's the very basic separation of powers doctrine. If it's a close call (and most would agree that this is) then you must fall back on the presumption that congress passed a constitutional act. They are democratically accountable and Marbury v. Madison does not say that the supreme court is the sole decider of what is constitutional it merely created the doctrine of judicial review...most early visions of the united states put forth by the Framers envisioned a world where the 3 branches in unison would decide questions of constitutionality. The proper role of the court in a situation like this must weigh heavy on the minds of all the justices and IMO the TRULY conservative thing to do here is to upheld by the slimmest of margins crediting congressional deference as the trump card that put it over the edge. Also, the political consequences and timing IMO could be considered. The court is allowed to factor in the consequences to the other branches it's rulings will have.

Not sure what you are talking about and I haven't watched today's arguments yet. Are you talking about generally deciding severability? That would be something courts routinely do when striking down portions of more general schemes is to decide if the entire thing is void or if just that portion is...or are you talking about something more specific that you think she did that was crossing the line? If so do tell I'll look for it when I watch and let ya know what I think.

Hippocratic Oath is older than our constitution....jus sayin'

Don't remember. Gun to my head I would say Ginsburg said it IRRC.

Keep in mind stand your ground mainly applies where both people have a legal right to be in the area. This guys was breaking and entering. There's a difference. Most states allow you to use deadly force when someone breaks into your "castle" although you still need to fear for death or serious bodily injury (though such fear is usually assumed and on the defendant to rebut). Also like Exile said this guy was a past-criminal who was not supposed to have a gun (if I read correctly while skimming). Bottom line this story has little to do with Stand Your Ground in Florida or Treyvon Martin.

Well I think the idea is force those people into the system. And I thought the number they were going with was $1000 not $800 but could be wrong.

It's a difficult job and they certainly may be guilty in "stretching" logic more in one direction than another to reach a determination more in line with their view of the constitution. But not to support party politics. This is a huge deal in terms of commerce clause jurisprudence. It is something they will all take seriously this case will be around long after Obama and the current Repubs.

They really do decide legal questions to the best of their abilities according to how they view the constitution. They don't have some "agenda that is beyond the constitution" that is precisely what they are sworn not to have and they all take that seriously. That is what I believe.

It really just isn't true. Not true. There is probably nothing that would cause you to think otherwise though.

Just got done with the entire thing. Honestly it's almost as if that guy did more harm than good. Their first lawyer did such an outstanding job following the bumbling solicitor that they didn't need more. Then that guy got up their like Bill O'Reilly and was somewhat combative and generally brought a demeanor that hurt their cause, something the first guy was excellent at avoiding. Not that any of this will matter in the end I'm sure but it was interesting to see his approach.

Like it or not there's a legal presumption they know what they're talking about.

There are 4 Dem- and 4 Repub-appointed judges who in the past have voted along those lines. Kennedy was Repub-appointed, but has been a wildcard with his decisions. Yea but that isn't the way it always works being a conservative judge is not the same as being a conservative political person and to use one example many though Scalia would support the mandate based on his strong view of the commerce clause. At this point it doesn't seem like Scalia is leaning that way...but who knows! Anyway all I'm saying is this one isn't "all on Kennedy" as is the common view (even though it's an over simplification in most situations and not just this one).

Ya what was great was day 1 where you have Roberts clearly showing he feels a toothless legal obligation is no obligation at all. Then Kagan clearly feels the opposite. To me anyway, based on the questioning. Any 5 year old has weighed this idea in their head about the countless rules their mom gives them. Is it a rule if there is no punishment? Yet there are two distinguished judges with what at least seems clear (through questioning...but again I'm the one saying it isn't smart to read into that) that disagree about that.

Well in this instance I'm not convinced there is an identifiable "swing judge" but either way I can't argue that it's not perfectly reasonable to argue today didn't go well. As for the mandate being a Republican idea, that has nothing to do with the legal question it just to me is funny given the way political people are acting now.

While today was a brutal and brutal from the very first question, it's absolutely INSANE to put any real stock in where the judge's are going based on their questioning. They use it to play devil's advocate to their own opinion, to communicate with each other, and yes often to just answer a question they too are wondering...but the bottom line is if you listen to SC oral arguments over time you know that it's dangerous to assume anything b/c of them. Also I love how some people in this thread say things like "obviously unconstitutional" and "oh just gave libs the next great idea." Ya...the mandate was a Republican idea first and foremost. And a huge portion of lawmakers passed the bill, and thus thought it would be constitutional. Also, I'd like to point out that if I were a justice and I was dead set to uphold the mandate...the questions I would ask would all center around "what limit" does the commerce clause have if any b/c in writing my opinion I'd be hard pressed not to include SOME dicta in there speaking to that point. So that's one example of how questioning isn't what it may seem. A justice asking a question is not a justice implying they disagree with what they are questioning.

We need to trade this guy before his value is 0 b/c there isn't a spot on this team for him.

Smith won't throw it based on what I've seen so there's only one answer.

Could be wrong but if I recall correctly Thigpen is in the 2nd year of a 3 year deal where he's making fairly substantial money as a back up. I think he's our guy for this year at least. If Fitzy struggles or is hurt the entire project we're building for is screwed.

This topic has turned into the argument for moving down if at all possible this year. Get it done Buddy. Resign Bell, and move down/get more picks and take BPA to add depth and maybe even strike gold.

Taking goal posts down and generally storming field/court is not really something that happens in pro-sports anymore. Although if we did it the national media would just talk about how great Buffalo is and how it's like a college atmosphere for pro-football so it could be worth it. That said, I wouldn't want to be involved.

That's what the insiders call a "flawless offseason."

Suggested steps for Saints franchise: 1) Trade Brees (and anyone else you can) for unGodly amounts of picks to recoup the ability to build 2) In doing so and also w/ coaching frenzy expect to tank, and tank hard revealing New Orleans wont' go to games unless the team is real good 3) Sneak out of garbage heap that is New Orleans and settle in a new cozy stadium in LA 4) Rebuild to a patient and ecstatic fan base that just got a team back, in a town FA's will want to come to 5) Profit from all this. Help Bills stay in WNY along the way.

This is fantastic news for the Bills

I'm on board