RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:42 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 8036
U.S. top court rebuffs state bids to cut Planned Parenthood funds

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected appeals by Louisiana and Kansas seeking to end public funding by those states to Planned Parenthood, a national women's healthcare and abortion provider, through the Medicaid program.

The justices left intact lower court rulings that prevented the two states from stripping government healthcare funding from local Planned Parenthood affiliates.

https://news.yahoo.com/u-top-court-rebu ... on-brknews


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11492
Those dastardly courts, they keep blocking ideas which are illegal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:15 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14875
And if I am reading this right NO THANKS to Gorsuch who I said would be on the wrong side of everything, so far just about everything is in fact correct. I think there was one decision where he wasnt but he is of course another 99% of the time guaranteed vote for the Koch Bros and the Falwell bunch.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_f2ah.pdf

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:49 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11492
And if I am reading this right NO THANKS to Gorsuch who I said would be on the wrong side of everything, so far just about everything is in fact correct. I think there was one decision where he wasnt but he is of course another 99% of the time guaranteed vote for the Koch Bros and the Falwell bunch.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_f2ah.pdf


I don't know how to connected what you said with that link to the latest Supreme Court orders which have been issued.



I did notice when I was there that Certiorari was granted to KISOR V. WILKIE, but it's limited to just question one.

That means that question 2 which is asking that Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v.
Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) be overruled. Will not be overruled.

What that's about is this:

"In interpreting an administrative regulation, a court must necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt. The intention of Congress or the principles of the Constitution in some situations may be relevant in the first instance in choosing between various constructions. But the ultimate criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

So that is decided, this procedure stands.



That's both good and bad.

For the disabled veteran Kisor it probably means he won't be retroactively awarded disability payments for the years between 1983 and 2006. He does get disability now and has since 2006. So for him this decision maybe bad, but not nessearly they are taking his case for review. They might grant him an exception to the rule, without overturning the rule.

For a whole slew of Obama era regulation changes, especially regulations which have to do with the EPA this decision is good, it means they are less likely to be challenged on this basis. For the recent immigration lower court rulings which have blocked Trump this decision is good.


Overturning Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co would tip over the apple cart and the ripple effects would be hard to evaluate. It would throw open a lot of stuff.


I'm inclined to want to leave this be, in other words I agree with the court.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:57 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16869
So Sam is a Neil Gorsuch fan boy. There's a big surprise.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11492
So Sam is a Neil Gorsuch fan boy. There's a big surprise.


So Ike's a Neil Gorsuch fan boy. There's a big surprise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11492
An interesting headline for this case.

Kavanaugh, Roberts side with liberal justices as Supreme Court hamstrings efforts by Kansas and Louisiana to defund Planned Parenthood

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/10/supreme ... thood.html

"In his dissent, Thomas wrote that the question before the court "has nothing to do with abortion." He said he would have taken up the case in order to resolve a circuit split over whether Medicaid recipients have the right to challenge a state's determination of what makes a medical provider "qualified."

Thomas is ignoring that these cases have everything to do about abortion, abortion was the motivating factor behind these states push to defund Planned Parenthood.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16869

So Ike's a Neil Gorsuch fan boy. There's a big surprise.


See a neurologist before it's too late.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:22 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12747
Location: Sunny South Florida
What I find interesting is Gorsuch's voting record over his first year.

SCOTUSBlog, has a way of measuring the votes of SCOTUS justices, and according to their Empirical system, this is the chart we get:

Image

The most right wing justice on the court, according to their system, is Thomas. I bet that surprises nobody.

Gorsuch is about as right wing as Alito.

The most left wing justice is Sotomayor. With Notorious RBG only slightly behind.

Kennedy really was a centrist. I mean, there he is on the center. :D I will wager some good donuts on Kavanaugh leaning more to the right. :mrgreen:

(I understand these terms as a descriptor for judicial philosophy are even more a shorthand than for political philosophy. But there, again, I digress. :D )

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:11 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11492

See a neurologist before it's too late.


:rofl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11492
What I find interesting is Gorsuch's voting record over his first year.

SCOTUSBlog, has a way of measuring the votes of SCOTUS justices, and according to their Empirical system, this is the chart we get:

Image

The most right wing justice on the court, according to their system, is Thomas. I bet that surprises nobody.

Gorsuch is about as right wing as Alito.

The most left wing justice is Sotomayor. With Notorious RBG only slightly behind.

Kennedy really was a centrist. I mean, there he is on the center. :D I will wager some good donuts on Kavanaugh leaning more to the right. :mrgreen:

(I understand these terms as a descriptor for judicial philosophy are even more a shorthand than for political philosophy. But there, again, I digress. :D )


I'm familiar with the Martin-Quinn" scores. Check out the graph for 1991 from the same source.

Image

I'm showing that graph to visually show what this from the SCOTUS blog states:

"Gorsuch joined the Supreme Court at a unique time. Although there is much discussion about how this court could be the moving toward the right, especially if Justice Anthony Kennedy (or any of the more liberal justices) retires with a Republican president at the helm, other statistics show that the court at present is actually more ideologically liberal than it has been in years."

The average score for 1991 was conservative 0.733 shifting to liberal 0.195 by 2016.



This graph is interesting as well:

Image


The point of this is about 80% of the time there's no real difference between the judges from the far left to the far right. It kind of explains why RBG and Scalia could be best of friends during their off time.

This data set is pretty stale and with Kavanagh having been added it has undoubtedly have shifted back some to the right, but will it have shifted as far back to the right to where it was back in 1991 ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:28 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12747
Location: Sunny South Florida
Yah. BTW, Sam, they have a dynamic chart here, which unfortunately can't be cut-pasted due to its ... dynamism.

Interesting stuff.
https://mqscores.lsa.umich.edu

Anyway, nice explanation of MQ scores there.

Thing is, when all's said and done, it is still the case, wherever the Court was before he got there, Gorsuch moved it to the right. ;) It's pretty hard to not argue Garland would not have been the same.

Ergo, Gorsuch was worse than Garland. :D

We don't have a judicial record for Kavanaugh and the motion he'll give to the judicial ocean, but I think they'll have scores on him next year. :D

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11492
Yah. BTW, Sam, they have a dynamic chart here, which unfortunately can't be cut-pasted due to its ... dynamism.

Interesting stuff.
https://mqscores.lsa.umich.edu

Anyway, nice explanation of MQ scores there.

Thing is, when all's said and done, it is still the case, wherever the Court was before he got there, Gorsuch moved it to the right. ;) It's pretty hard to not argue Garland would not have been the same.

Ergo, Gorsuch was worse than Garland. :D

We don't have a judicial record for Kavanaugh and the motion he'll give to the judicial ocean, but I think they'll have scores on him next year. :D


That dynamic chart looked postable to me:

Image

A pretty thing, and pretty useless.

It cuts off at about 2010, so it's 8 years stale. When it does get to about 2010 it doesn't stay up long enough for me to get a good look at it before it disappears and cycles back to the beginning.

I thought the explanation of MQ scores there amounted to zilch, useless fluff. All it explained was the scoring system creators bio. It had zip in terms of explaining the subjective scoring theory it operates upon. The what it is and how it is calibrated interesting stuff. No showing of the math in their model is based on at all.

Fortunately in the past I have seen those details about that scoring system. Its a very subjective um science.

It's a neat toy, but it's not a flying toy. Kind of like the 4 way political compass thing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12747
Location: Sunny South Florida
Heh. It was an animated GIF. Usually when I run into dynamic animations, they're not.

Anyway. Noticed the same issue. I agree with you it's cool to watch. :D

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11492
Heh. It was an animated GIF. Usually when I run into dynamic animations, they're not.

Anyway. Noticed the same issue. I agree with you it's cool to watch. :D


That it is, my son is fascinated by it too. :D



Insofar as the two major issues the court decided to not take up today we saw a red letter day for liberals. Worthy of some hope for the future and wee celebratory nip from a big orange drink.

The reference to the big orange drink is from here:

ANDY GRIFFITH: WHAT IT WAS, WAS FOOTBALL

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:06 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19112

So Ike's a Neil Gorsuch fan boy. There's a big surprise.


mindless imitation

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:21 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12747
Location: Sunny South Florida
A big orange drink it is.

Image

Maybe a classic.

Image

You ever wonder how they get it so ... frothy?

I kinda prefer the French stuff, myself.

Image

I think it's all owned by Snapple at this point. :D

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11492
A big orange drink it is.

I think it's all owned by Snapple at this point. :D


I enjoyed that post X you got the spirit.

Snapple! Now there's a snappy name for the orange one would add to the moonshine to make a proper big orange drink.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:31 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:41 pm
Posts: 2682
Location: Oregon
:) you can make a reasonable facsimile of a frothy Orange Julius using Coffee Mate or something similar. :)

Put 1 cup of orange juice and 1/4 cup of creamer into a blender, and blend for about a minute to get the creamer all dissolved into the juice. Then, add about 12 ice cubes – one at a time, giving them time in between to be crushed into the mixture.

_________________
"When the rich take money from the poor it's called business, when poor people resist it's called violence." –Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:06 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11492

I don't know how to connected what you said with that link to the latest Supreme Court orders which have been issued.



I did notice when I was there that Certiorari was granted to KISOR V. WILKIE, but it's limited to just question one.

That means that question 2 which is asking that Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v.
Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) be overruled. Will not be overruled.

What that's about is this:

"In interpreting an administrative regulation, a court must necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt. The intention of Congress or the principles of the Constitution in some situations may be relevant in the first instance in choosing between various constructions. But the ultimate criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

So that is decided, this procedure stands.



That's both good and bad.

For the disabled veteran Kisor it probably means he won't be retroactively awarded disability payments for the years between 1983 and 2006. He does get disability now and has since 2006. So for him this decision maybe bad, but not nessearly they are taking his case for review. They might grant him an exception to the rule, without overturning the rule.

For a whole slew of Obama era regulation changes, especially regulations which have to do with the EPA this decision is good, it means they are less likely to be challenged on this basis. For the recent immigration lower court rulings which have blocked Trump this decision is good.


Overturning Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co would tip over the apple cart and the ripple effects would be hard to evaluate. It would throw open a lot of stuff.


I'm inclined to want to leave this be, in other words I agree with the court.


I'm quoting my own post from yesterday because I'm going to contrast it with today's National Review article:

The Boring Supreme Court Case That Could Help Make America Great Again
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/ ... eat-again/

Quote:
The case is called Kisor v. Wilkie, and it’s a veteran’s-benefit case involving a Marine seeking retroactive benefits for his PTSD. The case hinged on the VA’s interpretation of the word “relevant” in the applicable federal regulations. In his petition for Supreme Court review, Mr. Kisor submitted two questions:

1. Whether the Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock and Sand Co.

2. Alternatively, whether Auer deference should yield to a substantive canon of construction.

The Court granted review on Question 1 only.

Asleep yet? Well, wake up because I’m going to explain now why this is a Big Deal in the battle against the metastasizing administrative state. Auer and Bowles are the Supreme Court cases that “direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.” It’s the Little Satan that works with the Great Satan — Chevron deference — to fuel the explosive growth in the power of executive-branch agencies.


I'm not asleep, I noticed the NR author David French has turned 3 questions into 2 questions by not mentioning question 1, and then has renumbered question 2 to become number 1, and question 3 has been renumbered to become number 2.

Here's the relevant document, number 18-15:

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/f ... or_opp.pdf

Quote:
The questions presented are as follows:

1. Whether the records that petitioner submitted were “relevant” under 38 C.F.R. 3.156(c)(1) so that petitioner’s benefits award should have been given a 1982 effective date.

2. Whether the Court should overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997).

3. Whether a substantive canon of construction displaces judicial deference under Seminole Rock and Auer.


So I guess Santa is not coming to give gifts to MAGA after all. I do agree with French about the importance of Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand and Auer v. Robbins, however I want it to stay and French is wishing upon a star for it to go. Too bad his star can not count questions.


:)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group