In other SCOTUS news…
…Citizens United was affirmed.
Here are some more predictions about what will happen in the HCR ruling.
Glenn Reynolds opines on the recent Democratic drive to pre-emptively delegitimize SCOTUS, in case it rules against them in the Obamacare case.
There may be a curious game afoot regarding the SCOTUS Obamacare decision. I would not be surprised if a decision to overturn the mandate wound up as 6-3 w/ Sotomayor joining Kennedy and the 4 conservatives (or 5-4 with Sotomayor and the 4 conservatives).
If you read Richard Epstein:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/119811
he writes in the oral arguments of Armour v. Indianapolis that Justice Sotomayor wondered
“. . . out loud whether accepting Armour’s claim would commit the Court to examining ‘amnesty programs’ covering everything from parking tickets to illegal immigration.”
Sotomayor then joined in a decision that included Justice Thomas.
This sounds suspiciously like saying that the mandate under the commerce clause would permit congress to regulate everything from parking tickets to illegal immigration, a concept that she, herself, admitted was not selling well at the bench. One can only wonder if she will be consistent in applying her logic in Armour to the healthcare decision. We shall see.
Thursday will be an interesting day.
Wouldn’t that be an epitomic example of the beauty of the American system of government, Mr. T? A justice who was appointed because she is considered a reliable safeguard of illiberal theism wounds her masters because she is now no longer merely a servant but a master in her own right. And it makes double sense with Sotomayer who probably perceives it was not her acumen but her allegiance which was valued.
Curtis wrote:
“A justice who was appointed because she is considered a reliable safeguard of illiberal theism wounds her masters because she is now no longer merely a servant but a master in her own right.”
Thomas Becket Lives (perhaps)!
BTW Curtis,
Mr. T is some well-built movie star w/ lotsa gold chains. I have neither the build, the celebrity nor the gold; I’m just “T.”
The other interesting thing about the upcoming decision is that the left is already harping on the politicization of the court if it invalidates the mandate.
Think about that. The expected decision is 5-4 (the 4 conservatives + Kennedy’s swing vote). if THAT occurs, then clearly the court is politicized by the conservative justices. It’s as if Kennedy, the swing vote, potentially the most important vote, doesn’t even count; it’s those damned activist conservative justices overstepping THEIR jurisdiction.
The case of a 6-3 or 5-4 decision to invalidate the mandate with Sotomayor participating in the majority blows all of these leftist criticisms of right-wing SCOTUS politicization right out of the water.
As I said, Thursday will be an interesting day.
“with Sotomayor participating in the majority blows all of these leftist criticisms of right-wing SCOTUS politicization right out of the water.”
IMO, it will be 5-4 one way or the other. I do not believe for a nanosecond that Sotomayor is an ideological purist or has any steadfast principles. I would enjoy being contradicted, but I’m not willing to hold my breath for 60 seconds. Sotomayor is a “wise Latina” whatever the hell that means it definitely doesn’t mean adherence to the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Somewhere over the rainbow is not where you will find Sotomayor flying with bluebirds. Again, want to be wrong but color me supremely doubtful.
When you think about it. it’s pretty scary that how one man votes determines the law of the land.
Parker,
You may be correct. After all, this discussion is nothing more than speculation. However, I think that the point Curtis makes above (“. . . she is now no longer merely a servant but a master in her own right”) is a salient one.
This changes people, and Sotomayor may well become sensitive to her own legacy as a jurist, a legacy not well served by simply parroting the claims of the administration who put her there. Remember, David Souter was a George H. W. Bush appointee, and look how that turned out.