WWTBAM Bored

I suppose that the Bored lawyers will be most interested in this but the rest of us should be too as it indicates how this court might rule on other cases.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/ar ... reme-court

If the Supreme Court treats the Obamacare case as a question of federal administrative law (which it is), then it would be a slam dunk win for the law. Under a line of cases dating back to the Reagan administration, the Court has upheld the administrative agency's interpretation of the law absent a clear showing that Congress intended a contrary result. Ironically, in that case the Reagan EPA declined to enforce environmental laws under its interpretation and the language there was at least as clear as what the plaintiffs are challenging in the Obamacare case.

But I highly doubt Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will view it that way. What remains to be seen is what Roberts and Kennedy do.

I do expect the blowback on the Obamacare and gay marriage cases to make the Supreme Court a major issue in the next presidential election. Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer are all in their upper 70s or above, so there's a good chance the next president could make two or three appointments.

silverscreenselect wrote:If the Supreme Court treats the Obamacare case as a question of federal administrative law (which it is), then it would be a slam dunk win for the law. Under a line of cases dating back to the Reagan administration, the Court has upheld the administrative agency's interpretation of the law absent a clear showing that Congress intended a contrary result. Ironically, in that case the Reagan EPA declined to enforce environmental laws under its interpretation and the language there was at least as clear as what the plaintiffs are challenging in the Obamacare case.

But I highly doubt Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will view it that way. What remains to be seen is what Roberts and Kennedy do.

I do expect the blowback on the Obamacare and gay marriage cases to make the Supreme Court a major issue in the next presidential election. Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer are all in their upper 70s or above, so there's a good chance the next president could make two or three appointments.

The other day Mike Huckabee said he thinks Supreme Court justices should be term-limited. I wonder if he realizes that if they did have terms and they were limited that we'd have a majority liberal court today.

Bob Juch wrote:I suppose that the Bored lawyers will be most interested in this but the rest of us should be too as it indicates how this court might rule on other cases.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/ar ... reme-court

The Court was being asked to overrule a 50-year-old decision that said U.S. patent law precluded any attempt to obtain license fees for patented products based on sales occurring after the patent expires. Exactly such a license was presented by the case. It was clearly unenforceable (after patent expiration) under current law and the Court was being asked to expressly overrule the earlier decision.

The Court's refusal to do so was really unexceptional. Even though the underlying reasoning may have been flawed, because the issue has always been one of purely statutory interpretation, Congress's failure to change the rule for over 50 years means that Congress is comfortable with the result. If that's the case, the courts shouldn't take it upon themselves to change the law by reversing a 50-year-old decision. In addition, because contracts are involved, it's quite likely that many private agreements (which were written with knowledge of the prior law) would be unexpectedly changed.

This reasoning doesn't apply with as much force when the issue is constitutional (rather than statutory interpretation), because Congress can't change those results, other than by presenting a constitutional amendment to the states.

The Case Note I wrote to get onto the California Law Review was an extensive stare decisis analysis of Arizona v. Fulminante. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:I suppose that the Bored lawyers will be most interested in this but the rest of us should be too as it indicates how this court might rule on other cases.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/ar ... reme-court

The Court was being asked to overrule a 50-year-old decision that said U.S. patent law precluded any attempt to obtain license fees for patented products based on sales occurring after the patent expires. Exactly such a license was presented by the case. It was clearly unenforceable (after patent expiration) under current law and the Court was being asked to expressly overrule the earlier decision.

The Court's refusal to do so was really unexceptional. Even though the underlying reasoning may have been flawed, because the issue has always been one of purely statutory interpretation, Congress's failure to change the rule for over 50 years means that Congress is comfortable with the result. If that's the case, the courts shouldn't take it upon themselves to change the law by reversing a 50-year-old decision. In addition, because contracts are involved, it's quite likely that many private agreements (which were written with knowledge of the prior law) would be unexpectedly changed.

This reasoning doesn't apply with as much force when the issue is constitutional (rather than statutory interpretation), because Congress can't change those results, other than by presenting a constitutional amendment to the states.

The Case Note I wrote to get onto the California Law Review was an extensive stare decisis analysis of Arizona v. Fulminante. --Bob

That was the finding that a murder confession was coerced and warranted a new trial. I don't see how stare decisis came into play.

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The Case Note I wrote to get onto the California Law Review was an extensive stare decisis analysis of Arizona v. Fulminante. --Bob

That was the finding that a murder confession was coerced and warranted a new trial. I don't see how stare decisis came into play.

Whether the confession was coerced was Part I of the analysis. The remaining issue was whether that finding compelled reversal or whether, under some circumstances, the admission of a coerced confession could be harmless error. Reversing prior law, the Court concluded that it could be harmless error but that on the facts, the error was not harmless. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The Case Note I wrote to get onto the California Law Review was an extensive stare decisis analysis of Arizona v. Fulminante. --Bob

That was the finding that a murder confession was coerced and warranted a new trial. I don't see how stare decisis came into play.

Whether the confession was coerced was Part I of the analysis. The remaining issue was whether that finding compelled reversal or whether, under some circumstances, the admission of a coerced confession could be harmless error. Reversing prior law, the Court concluded that it could be harmless error but that on the facts, the error was not harmless. --Bob

Good decision!