May 21, 2012
"Nonlegal Arguments for Upholding the Individual Mandate."
Ilya Somin describes and refutes arguments based on enhancing the Court's "legitimacy," avoiding the appearance of "partisanship," and avoiding "judicial activism." Actually, calling these arguments "nonlegal" is part of the refutation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Reminds me of the definition of bipartisanship - "You give us everything we want, and we'll invite you to our cocktail parties!"
Legal reasoning gives precision a certain shape, not greater precision than ordinary reasoning.
Ordinary reasoning is more precise in ordinary life.
"Nonlegal Arguments for Upholding the Individual Mandate."
In sum: "Because we said so."
Weren't these, in many ways, the same types of arguments used to defend Jim Crow? E.g., the Southern Manifesto.
Activist court, disrupting the country, delegitimizing the judiciary?
No, it's quite different but if you want to play the race card don't be surprised if you're playing partner does so too.
Seems likely that the Roberts court will invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act. After Bush v. Gore I realized that the only thing the court is "strict" about is being good Republican apparatchiks.
Dave, why do you think the court's ruling on Bush vs Gore was incorrect?
After Bush v. Gore I realized that the only thing the court is "strict" about is being good Republican apparatchiks.
Interesting, since the Court voted 7-2 to stop the selective recounts. I guess that means you have 2 libs on the court that are secretly in league with Darth Rove.
Perhaps the Libs need to rev up their cullings. Clearly, too many Democrats are conspiring with Emmanuel Goldstein.
I taught at the college level for a while. Every so often I'd have a student that didn't do the homework or perform very well on tests. When the end of term drew near and the student was finally aware he/she might get a D or F, the student would ask about doing an 'extra credit' assignment.*
These 'nonlegal' arguments remind me of those students. They failed at the legitimate methods to pass, so their looking for something 'extra'.
(*My answer was usually no. Based on their track record, I figured the extra work would be bad and be of no value, or the extra work would be good but not their own.)
OK Dave, make your case.... show us why the SCOTUS is wrong here.
We can wait...
A friend says what Dave says and when I asked him why he said, Well look they were divided on Bush/Gore straight down partisan sides. [I wasn't sure about that, but it was his point] That is what he provided for proof that Republican supreme court justices are party apparatchiks. The Dems are partisan, therefore the Reps are too. That vote proved it to him. And, he is a very smart individual too, I must add, although I do detect a tiny bit of difficulty there discerning the purpose of attending a party arranged to celebrate another person's birthday.
Poor Dave. His information brokers (MSM, Lefty blogosphere) misled him about Bush V Gore. To the extent that he never heard about the 7-2 decision. And then he wandered into Althouse.
Seems likely that the Roberts court will invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act. After Bush v. Gore I realized that the only thing the court is "strict" about is being good Republican apparatchiks.
Yay, another brain-dead dribbling from Dave, who runs in, makes an asinine comment, and then runs off.
The only thing you're good for is mockery.
I do like that Somin pointed out that if the decision is "partisan", it just as much the fault of the liberal wing as it is the conservative wing. The liberal wing opposes pretty much all limits on Federal power, so all decisions where the gov't is limited is going to be because conservatives agree to do so.
Every court nominee hearing for all levels of nomination should include questions as to what, EXACTLY, the limits of Federal power are. If a judge cannot answer that, they should never be approved.
Indeed, Dave only showed that he did not and still does not understand what happened in Bush v. Gore.
But what will the European's think of us?
Oops; ...they're, not their.
Post a Comment