Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Obama Administration

[mrjarrell]

The feds wanted to use a chemical weapons law to go after a spurned woman who spread something on someone's door knobs as a war criminal. The supremes were having none of it and it looks like they even went after the treaty a bit and wanted it declared unConstitutional. This is the type of ruling you don't see every day, where everyone's on board against the government. Hopefully we'll see more of this in the future.

Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Obama Administration's "Boundless" Interpretation of Chemical Weapons Law - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Wow. All 9 justices agreed? And it was basically along the lines of common sense? Now that is truly amazing. Know what else is amazing, that #$%^ like this has to go to the @#$%ing supreme court to be resolved.

 

[actaeon277]

I didn't think you could get the Supreme 9 to agree if it was raining or not.

 

[Destro]

The case has been working it's way through federal courts since 2006, definitely a poor example of his misdeeds when so many others are abound.

 

[buckstopshere]

These clowns are supposed to be non-political, objective and focus on constitutionality without bias. 9-0 rulings should be the norm. The divisive 5-4 rulings that are generally party line have become the norm and just prove how politicized the SCOTUS has become.

Glad to see in this case they got it right.

 

[T.Lex]

These clowns are supposed to be non-political, objective and focus on constitutionality without bias. 9-0 rulings should be the norm. The divisive 5-4 rulings that are generally party line have become the norm and just prove how politicized the SCOTUS has become.

Two things - this wasn't really 9-0, it was 6+3-0. Six agreed on the main idea, and 3 agreed on the main idea plus would go further. The difference relates to genuine philosophical differences and interpretations of past precedent.

Which leads to the second thing, those same genuine philosophical differences are generally responsible for 5-4 splits. Anyone remember the deciding vote on Obamacare? It certainly wasn't politically motivated.

IMO, when the Supremes disagree with each other, it is because of honest differences of opinion, not politics. They - even the ones I usually disagree with philosophically - are RARELY ever motivated by anything other than trying to reach the right decision based on precedent. Just because I disagree with them on an issue, it doesn't make them wrong. Frankly, given the structure of our system, the Supreme Court is always correct.

 

[gstanley102]

Really? No politics involved in the Obamacare decission?

 

[T.Lex]

Really? No politics involved in the Obamacare decission?

In my opinion, no.

Unless you consider people's politics to grow from their political philosophy, too. Perhaps in that sense - where political actions are guided by philosophical ideals. But I don't get the impression that's what you are talking about.

In case you don't recall, the "deciding" vote to uphold Obamacare was from one of the philosophically conservative justices - Roberts. So, no, I don't think politics played a role in that.

Although, I do admit, others have speculated that he was playing some Machiavellian political game to help Republicans:
Roberts?s Obamacare decision, reconsidered

I consider that on par with some of the other conspiracy theories available on the webz.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Petitioner Bond sought revenge against Myrlinda Haynes—withwhom her husband had carried on an affair—by spreading two toxic
chemicals on Haynes’s car, mailbox, and door knob in hopes that
Haynes would develop an uncomfortable rash. On one occasion
Haynes suffered a minor chemical burn that she treated by rinsing
with water, but Bond’s attempted assaults were otherwise entirely
unsuccessful

How in a Fiddler's duck did this become a federal case to begin with? Apparently the Postal Inspectors were the ones who investigated it due to the mailbox involvement, so I guess that explains the federal involvement, but still? This is something to be referred back to the locals.

 

[actaeon277]

How in a Fiddler's duck did this become a federal case to begin with? Apparently the Postal Inspectors were the ones who investigated it due to the mailbox involvement, so I guess that explains the federal involvement, but still? This is something to be referred back to the locals.

Wasn't it federal because of the chemical weapons and terrorism charge?

 

[gstanley102]

In my opinion, no.

Unless you consider people's politics to grow from their political philosophy, too. Perhaps in that sense - where political actions are guided by philosophical ideals. But I don't get the impression that's what you are talking about.

In case you don't recall, the "deciding" vote to uphold Obamacare was from one of the philosophically conservative justices - Roberts. So, no, I don't think politics played a role in that.

Although, I do admit, others have speculated that he was playing some Machiavellian political game to help Republicans:
Roberts?s Obamacare decision, reconsidered

I consider that on par with some of the other conspiracy theories available on the webz.

I must have missed something along the way.
Out of curiosity how does ruling that congress has the power to require you to purchase "anything"
fit with a conservative philosophy?

 

[T.Lex]

I must have missed something along the way.
Out of curiosity how does ruling that congress has the power to require you to purchase "anything"
fit with a conservative philosophy?

No worries, you and I are more philosophically aligned than you think.

Under the SCOTUS logic, we aren't required to purchase anything. We are required to pay a tax. A special tax, that goes to pay for very specific stuff.

Up here in Carmel, we are at risk of having to pay a Special Benefits Tax on real property if the city doesn't make some bond payments. We'll be required to pay this property tax to pay a specific bill.

Obamacare is kinda the same thing. We are required to pay the tax if we don't already have health care so .gov will have the $ to pay for our health care.

Anyway, I bring it up as an example that if it were really political, Roberts would've voted against Obamacare. The Court is less "political" and more "philosophical" than most people think, although it is hard to tell the difference sometimes.

 

[gstanley102]

If we do not purchase healthcare insurance we must pay a tax.
Not just catastrophic insurance but specific coverage even if not needed, or if it infringes on your other constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Fits the leftist philosophy nicely I think.

With the SCOTUS decission we are now liable to purchase ANYTHING congress desires.

That is a political decission.

 

[buckstopshere]

Two things - this wasn't really 9-0, it was 6+3-0. Six agreed on the main idea, and 3 agreed on the main idea plus would go further. The difference relates to genuine philosophical differences and interpretations of past precedent.

Which leads to the second thing, those same genuine philosophical differences are generally responsible for 5-4 splits. Anyone remember the deciding vote on Obamacare? It certainly wasn't politically motivated.

IMO, when the Supremes disagree with each other, it is because of honest differences of opinion, not politics. They - even the ones I usually disagree with philosophically - are RARELY ever motivated by anything other than trying to reach the right decision based on precedent. Just because I disagree with them on an issue, it doesn't make them wrong. Frankly, given the structure of our system, the Supreme Court is always correct.

Your first thing-who gives a crap? As you stated, all 9 agreed on the main idea. It's 9-0. You want to mention that 3 more would take it further, so be it. It's still 9-0.


Your second thing - I don't care about the SCOTUS justices philosophies and neither should you or anyone else because there's no place for them. The US Constitution isn't a theory, it's a rule book and it's not nearly as hard to understand as Statists want to make it out to be. It's only debatable when it doesn't say what the .gov wants it to say.


Also, what is politics if not a philosophy? Your philosophy will lead you to your political leanings so to say SCOTUS have philosophical differences draws from the same well as political differences, both of which are rooted in personal beliefs. So how can you say decisions aren't made without politics if you claim differences of philosophy?


There's no place for ideology, theory, creed or plainly, personal opinion when weighing matters of constitutionality. Objectivity is paramount.

 

[T.Lex]

Your first thing-who gives a crap? As you stated, all 9 agreed on the main idea. It's 9-0. You want to mention that 3 more would take it further, so be it. It's still 9-0.

Well, for me, the "why" part is important. I thought it was important to your opinion of the court, too. I thought you were saying the justices all act out of political leanings.

The US Constitution isn't a theory, it's a rule book and it's not nearly as hard to understand as Statists want to make it out to be. It's only debatable when it doesn't say what the .gov wants it to say.

Wow. Not really sure what to do with that other than turn it around for you. Do you only think the court is wrong when it disagrees with what you believe?

So how can you say decisions aren't made without politics if you claim differences of philosophy?

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. There's "politics" as it is played out and "political philosophy" related to what people think and how they approach problems. Oftentimes, both are just labeled "politics." I thought you were talking about the former. The court is very good at taking out the influence of the former, but can't help the latter - it is human nature.

There's no place for ideology, theory, creed or plainly, personal opinion when weighing matters of constitutionality. Objectivity is paramount.

Yikes. That's a tall order. But, why stop at SCOTUS? Why don't we all approach problems with such objectivity? In matters of OC v. CC, there should be no place for ideology, theory, creed or plainly personal opinion.

Keep in mind, too, and I hesitate to "go there" but this is one of the rare times when it actually fits, if SCOTUS had held to your impossibly high standard, slavery would still be constitutional. (Maybe not legal, depending on what Congress did post-Civil War, but it would be constitutional.)

My friend, the justices are human. There are issues before them upon which reasonable people can disagree. IMHO, all of them - even the ones I disagree with - try very hard to make the right, objective decision, based on past decisions.

You, certainly, are free to disagree. :beer:

 

[Mark 1911]

9-0 is loud and clear. It's about time they sent such a message.

 

[Hotdoger]

Roberts bailed on this one too!

 

[buckstopshere]

Wow. Not really sure what to do with that other than turn it around for you. Do you only think the court is wrong when it disagrees with what you believe?

I think the courts are wrong when they find against what the constitution says. Which, of course, is the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do.

Yikes. That's a tall order. But, why stop at SCOTUS? Why don't we all approach problems with such objectivity? In matters of OC v. CC, there should be no place for ideology, theory, creed or plainly personal opinion.?

Well sure there should be. Why wouldn't there be? We are not tasked with providing the constitutional checks and balances on OC vs CC or vanilla vs chocolate. I don't hold you or anyone else to the same standard as I do the state.

Keep in mind, too, and I hesitate to "go there" but this is one of the rare times when it actually fits, if SCOTUS had held to your impossibly high standard, slavery would still be constitutional. (Maybe not legal, depending on what Congress did post-Civil War, but it would be constitutional.)

I assume you're talking about Dredd Scott? I'm not seeing how that's an example of my impossibly high standard since SCOTUS did maintain objectivity and ruled based on what the constitution actually said. There is a procedure for changing the constitution as you well know. The 13th amendment passed congress and was ratified by the states. Slavery was abolished as it should've been. No human can own another human. SCOTUS doesn't change the constitution, they're supposed to uphold it and limit .gov power. You could say that because SCOTUS held to my impossibly high standard in Scott v Sanford that they helped to usher in the civil war which ultimately lead to the 13th amendment.

My friend, the justices are human. There are issues before them upon which reasonable people can disagree. IMHO, all of them - even the ones I disagree with - try very hard to make the right, objective decision, based on past decisions.

You, certainly, are free to disagree. :beer:

I agree that justices are human.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

It's the end of days, I tells ya!

 

[Bennettjh]

It's the end of days, I tells ya!

The SCOTUS ALL agreed on something!