SCOTUS Watch

[Smutly]

You're content to let those previously rendered second-class citizens under the law before Obergefell languish in pain and sorrow because, fundamentally, you've got your rights, and you don't really care about those of others.

Now that my callous position has been uncovered I am shamed. Your ability to read my heart and mind is truly uncanny, Professor X. Your willingness to assign malice intent instead of taking someone at their word says much. You may find, as Justice Roberts' dissent mentions, that the way it was done could hurt your cause in the future. For now, it doesn't matter to you how it happened. Just that it happened. When the tables turn, you may not like the whiplash.

[Fireball]

It happened for gay people the same way it happened for mixed-race couples: a case finally came to the Court asserting the fact that the laws banning same-sex/mixed-race marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Court agreed. The Court didn't create a new right, it is merely requiring that states now allow same-sex couples to exercise the right that they already had to marry.

It was unfair to assert that you don't care, and I apologize. However, you still appear to be willing to allow people to suffer for years, maybe decades, to get the Court to use the logic you prefer, as opposed to the logic employed by the majority in harmony with decades of previous equal protection cases.

And as for Chief Justice Roberts' concern trolling, all I can say is

[RunningMn9]

Smutly, you need to understand that people have taken a position that harms their fellow citizens. There is no reason to allow them to continue harming their fellow citizens.

Try reading SCOTUS opinions from days gone by. If you think these were bad or out of character, it's because you don't actually know anything about the Supreme Court. You want to talk about following the correct process? Go take a look at the history of how the 14th Amendment got passed. Literally at bayonet point. We don't talk about it because fundamentally the 14th Amendment is a good thing. It's more important that it got passed than it is that it got passed in pristine fashion (although there are loons that are still trying to get it repealed because it is unconstitutional).

Governing is messy business. And I've found that the only time people want it to be pristine is when the outcome is something they are against, because procedure is the only argument they have left.

The challenge to the ACA was clearly ridiculous, and *clearly* ignored the intent of the law. Ruling that the law intended what the authors ACTUALLY intended is not an unreasonable outcome from the Court.

[GreenGoo]

There are reasons why this "interpretation" has offended a segment of the USA, including members of the SCOTUS. Think about that. Wait. No really, go back and think about that. These are not uneducated men who are fucking their sisters and have their own personal arsenals in their homes 'cause the gubmint is out to get them. Easily dismissing that is cavalier. I am a sane, well educated person and I know many, many people who are questioning the manner in which the government is doing business.

I've done what I wanted to do. I realize there is nothing to be 'won' here. Snipe away.

For the record, no one had sniped yet at the time of your post above. In fact responses were civil and Fireball, in a rare showing of restraint, simply stated that he understood the situation but disagreed with your opinion.

The only person to mention sisters or fucking them was you.

As far as people, including educated members of SCoTUS, disagreeing with ruling, you make it sound like this is an unusual situation. Barring a unanimous ruling, there is always going to be educated members of the court disagreeing. This is not a new thing and is an expected outcome of the system. That a portion of the US population disagrees with the outcome is also expected.

It's a controversial ruling for an increasingly shrinking segment of the population. I get that it sucks for them. I've been on the losing end of decisions, and it sucks. On the plus side, this ruling will have exactly ZERO impact on anyone who opposed it, so that's good news.

[Fireball]

In fact responses were civil and Fireball, in a rare showing of restraint, simply stated that he understood the situation but disagreed with your opinion.

In real life, I'm almost always the one arguing for conciliatory approaches and moderation. Something about this board and the decade-long fights just gets my dander up. I'm sorry about that. I really do like and respect everyone here.

[RunningMn9]

You may find, as Justice Roberts' dissent mentions, that the way it was done could hurt your cause in the future. For now, it doesn't matter to you how it happened.

Here's the part I don't get. And I don't get it for either case that you mentioned:

1) With respect to the ACA. The challenge before the Court was a superfluous challenge designed to use a very small piece of language within a very lengthy law to deal what would reasonably be expected to be a death blow to the entire law itself. The Court *must* consider the harm caused by ruling either way. Why? Because the harm caused by ruling in the Plaintiff's favor would be the death of the ACA, based on the way the ACA was designed to function. It is intuitively obvious that the authors of the ACA did not write it in such a way that it would immediately and intentionally fail. So any interpretation of the law that would read it such that it was intentionally trying to kill itself would be an incorrect interpretation of the law. Not because words don't matter, but because intent matters when interpreting words. *CLEARLY* the authors of the law did not intend to only provide tax subsidies to exchanges created by the individual States themselves. We know this because we asked them, and they told us. Ruling based on words, without context and without regard to the original intent of the words is senseless. The *only* reason that someone would want the Court to act this way, is simply because they want the ACA to be dead, and they saw this as the last chance at making it happen.

2) With respect to marriage equality, all objections to the ruling start and end with a premise - that marriage is not a fundamental component of individual liberty. But here is the problem with that - *all* of the people that feel that marriage is not a fundamental component of individual liberty absolutely and without question believe that "traditional" marriage is a fundamental component of THEIR individual liberty. And that's the rub, the majority holds that marriage is a fundamental component of individual human liberty, and as such, individual states cannot discriminate against some of their citizens and deny them that fundamental liberty. That is the primary function of the Supreme Court - to stop States from writing laws that violate the federal Constitution. Does this open the country up to the SCOTUS using the 14th Amendment to ensure that other minority groups don't have their individual liberties restricted by the majority? I certainly hope so.

There is nothing unexpected or obscene about either of these rulings. There is nothing earth shattering in either of these rulings. These are both fairly standard actions that the Supreme Court has taken for hundreds of years. And if you don't think so, it's because you haven't been paying attention.

If I can survive SCOTUS rulings like Citizens United, you and your friends will be able to live through these trying times.

[GreenGoo]

You may find, as Justice Roberts' dissent mentions, that the way it was done could hurt your cause in the future. For now, it doesn't matter to you how it happened.

Here's the part I don't get. And I don't get it for either case that you mentioned:

1) With respect to the ACA. The challenge before the Court was a superfluous challenge designed to use a very small piece of language within a very lengthy law to deal what would reasonably be expected to be a death blow to the entire law itself. The Court *must* consider the harm caused by ruling either way. Why? Because the harm caused by ruling in the Plaintiff's favor would be the death of the ACA, based on the way the ACA was designed to function. It is intuitively obvious that the authors of the ACA did not write it in such a way that it would immediately and intentionally fail. So any interpretation of the law that would read it such that it was intentionally trying to kill itself would be an incorrect interpretation of the law. Not because words don't matter, but because intent matters when interpreting words. *CLEARLY* the authors of the law did not intend to only provide tax subsidies to exchanges created by the individual States themselves. We know this because we asked them, and they told us. Ruling based on words, without context and without regard to the original intent of the words is senseless. The *only* reason that someone would want the Court to act this way, is simply because they want the ACA to be dead, and they saw this as the last chance at making it happen.

2) With respect to marriage equality, all objections to the ruling start and end with a premise - that marriage is not a fundamental component of individual liberty. But here is the problem with that - *all* of the people that feel that marriage is not a fundamental component of individual liberty absolutely and without question believe that "traditional" marriage is a fundamental component of THEIR individual liberty. And that's the rub, the majority holds that marriage is a fundamental component of individual human liberty, and as such, individual states cannot discriminate against some of their citizens and deny them that fundamental liberty. That is the primary function of the Supreme Court - to stop States from writing laws that violate the federal Constitution. Does this open the country up to the SCOTUS using the 14th Amendment to ensure that other minority groups don't have their individual liberties restricted by the majority? I certainly hope so.

There is nothing unexpected or obscene about either of these rulings. There is nothing earth shattering in either of these rulings. These are both fairly standard actions that the Supreme Court has taken for hundreds of years. And if you don't think so, it's because you haven't been paying attention.

If I can survive SCOTUS rulings like Citizens United, you and your friends will be able to live through these trying times.

I've got no problem with SCoTUS scolding the law writers because they did a crappy job.

[Smoove_B]

If I can survive SCOTUS rulings like Citizens United, you and your friends will be able to live through these trying times.

You don't understand -- the ruling regarding the ACA now allows them to ban the Confederate flag. And go ahead and try and deny the fact that after the democracy-destroying decision on Obamacare that decision was used like a trampoline to re-write the definition of marriage almost immediately. What's next? They're going to tell us what drugs we can use to kill people during a state-supported lethal injection execution?? How much mercury power plants can release into the atmosphere? It's total chaos out there!

[El Guapo]

I've got no problem with SCoTUS scolding the law writers because they did a crappy job.

To be fair, you try writing a ~ 1,000 page law carrying out a variety of fundamental reforms to a wildly dysfunctional sector of the economy with lots of varying and influential stakeholders and see how many ambiguities and arguable mistakes you wind up with.

[Combustible Lemur]

RM is missing a key component of what happened here. The writers of the ACA used the Death Star as their model for large complex projects. They incorrectly assumed it would make folding in Death Panels more smooth. Secret obvious kill switches are just a bonus.

[Isgrimnur]

Death Panels

Limited in size to two meters.

[hepcat]

Death Panels

Limited in size to two meters.

I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters.

[GreenGoo]

I've got no problem with SCoTUS scolding the law writers because they did a crappy job.

To be fair, you try writing a ~ 1,000 page law carrying out a variety of fundamental reforms to a wildly dysfunctional sector of the economy with lots of varying and influential stakeholders and see how many ambiguities and arguable mistakes you wind up with.

I simply have the lobbyists write it, my staff summarize it and my clerk use my signature stamp to sign it.

How is any of this my fault?

[Defiant]

A poll on supreme court decisions:

Unhappiness with the 2010 decision cuts across demographic and partisan and ideological lines. Although the ruling was fashioned by the court’s conservative majority, Republicans oppose Citizens United 80 percent to 18 percent, according to the poll. Democrats oppose 83 percent to 13 percent, and independents, 71 percent to 22 percent. Among self-described liberals, conservatives, and moderates, 80 percent say the decision should be overturned.

[El Guapo]

I'm surprised that the abortion poll results were so lopsided.

[Holman]

I'm surprised that the abortion poll results were so lopsided.

From Gallup:





I've always known that a solid majority accepts the right to abortion under at least some circumstances. I'm just surprised that the generally "Pro-Life" contingent within that majority recognizes that it's either Roe or nothing.

[Pyperkub]

Say goodbye to the east Texas patent court filing bonanza, I believe. ..

Thanks Kurth!

I'm not sure this decision is going to have that impact on EDTX filings, Pyperkub.

It's true that EDTX has traditionally been seen as a very patent-friendly forum due to (1) local patent rules that provide specific deadlines for patent cases; (2) judges willing to hold on to cases where the jurisdictional basis (i.e., ties to Texas) are weak; and (3) most importantly, juries that tended to hand out very large damages awards upon findings of infringement. But the importance of each of these has diminished somewhat in recent years. Many other jurisdictions have now adopted similar local patent rules, the Federal Circuit has handed down some decisions that limit the degree to which judges can hold on to cases with tenuous ties to their jurisdiction, and recent case law has called into question the damages analyses that many of the more Texas-sized damages awards were previously based on.

That said, the Teva v. Sandoz decision actually may result in patent plaintiffs engaging in even more forum shopping. Because the trial judge's claim construction ruling now has teeth and won't automatically be reviewed from the ground up by the appellate court, patentees will probably try even harder to make sure they are filing in districts where there are judges who they believe will be more receptive to their claim construction arguments. This analysis is going to vary from judge to judge rather than district to district, but to the extent EDTX is seen as a patent-friendly forum with judges who may tend to sde with patentees when considering arguments about what their patent claims mean, I wouldn't expect to see a decrease in EDTX filings. Maybe the opposite.

As a side note, has anyone ever been to Marshall, TX, where the EDTX sits? Marshall, TX has taken on an almost mythical place in patent land due to the number of cases filed in EDTX and the size of some of the judgments that come out of there. But when I went there for a Markman hearing a few years back, I was floored. It's literally a one stop light town in the middle of nowhere with a tiny courthouse with two small, shabby court-rooms. Not at all what I expected!

Not sure if this is related, but East Texas just threw out 168 patent cases:

The most prolific patent troll of last year, eDekka LLC, has had its patent wiped out. The ruling (PDF) will shut down 168 lawsuits that eDekka filed based on US Patent No. 6,266,674, according to Texas Lawyer, which first reported the ruling.

The ruling comes from a surprising source: US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the East Texas judge who has been criticized for making life extra-difficult for patent defendants. Gilstrap, who hears more patent cases than any other US judge, will eliminate about 10 percent of his entire patent docket by wiping out the eDekka cases.

[Isgrimnur]

6,266,674

Defendants

[Isgrimnur]

Scalia

Sen. Harry Reid on Thursday accused Justice Antonin Scalia of embracing “racist” ideas, joining in criticism from the Rev. Al Sharpton and other affirmative action supporters who said the Supreme Court jurist went too far when he questioned the push to recruit black students to prestigious universities.
...
Justice Scalia stunned the courtroom during oral arguments in an affirmative action case Wednesday when he cited research suggesting that most black scientists did not go to prestigious research universities such as the University of Texas at Austin, whose racial preferences policy was the subject of the hearing.

“I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible,” Justice Scalia said.

[Pyperkub]

Scalia

Sen. Harry Reid on Thursday accused Justice Antonin Scalia of embracing “racist” ideas, joining in criticism from the Rev. Al Sharpton and other affirmative action supporters who said the Supreme Court jurist went too far when he questioned the push to recruit black students to prestigious universities.
...
Justice Scalia stunned the courtroom during oral arguments in an affirmative action case Wednesday when he cited research suggesting that most black scientists did not go to prestigious research universities such as the University of Texas at Austin, whose racial preferences policy was the subject of the hearing.

“I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible,” Justice Scalia said.

I tried reading the amicus brief to see what the actual data behind the claims were, as it was apparently written by a UCLA Professor. I found this article to be very informative:

Given this process, it should not be surprising that the resulting article — “Affirmative Action and the Quality-Fit Tradeoff” — does not take thundering positions on any of the outstanding issues. Indeed, it finds that on many of the most important questions raised by the mismatch hypothesis, the available data is too scattered and too poor in quality to reach clear conclusions. Moreover, since the authors find there are “positive average effects of college quality” on a host of outcomes, any mismatch effect has to be large enough to outweigh these advantages.

However...

Nonetheless, the authors find persuasive evidence that such mismatch effects occur, particularly in law school and in science education.

Which makes sense - not all college coursework/majors/degrees are created equal and remedial education (as is very, very often found with students of ALL colors/creeds) can help in some ways but not in others.

IMHO, if Scalia references this brief as proof that UT undergrad should abolish affirmative action, he is being an ideologue (as I fully expect him to be). The case is about UT overall, and not UT Law or Science, as best I can tell.

[msteelers]

When I first heard Scalia said that the University of Texas was too advanced for black people, I thought that he had to have been taken out of context. But nope, he wasn't.

Referencing an unidentified amicus brief, Scalia said that there were people who would contend that "it does not benefit African-Americans to -- to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well."

He literally said that African Americans don't do well in "advanced" schools. That's some racist shit.

He argued that "most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas."

And he doubled down on it!

Scalia is a disgrace to the Supreme Court.

[Rip]

When I first heard Scalia said that the University of Texas was too advanced for black people, I thought that he had to have been taken out of context. But nope, he wasn't.

Referencing an unidentified amicus brief, Scalia said that there were people who would contend that "it does not benefit African-Americans to -- to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well."

He literally said that African Americans don't do well in "advanced" schools. That's some racist shit.

He argued that "most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas."

And he doubled down on it!

Scalia is a disgrace to the Supreme Court.

Context is everything.

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them. I’m just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer.

The theory is simple enough that even a layman can understand. Suppose that an Asian and black student apply to a pretty good school like USC, but also a much better school like Notre Dame. Based on grades and ability alone, neither student would get into Notre Dame. But as a result of affirmative action, the black student gets into both schools while the Asian student only gets into USC.

The theory behind affirmative action is that the black student would benefit from graduating from Notre Dame, the school with more prestige¹. But the workload at elite schools is also more strenuous and more competitive. While the Asian student might end up valedictorian, the black student could end up with a B average. Or even worse, while the Asian might end up graduating with C’s and D’s while the black student could flunk out entirely with thousands in debt and nothing to show for it.

That’s the theory anyways. It has its proponents and its detractors, but much of the evidence put forward by the proponents ought to concern those who sincerely care about minority students’ academic achievement.

Black college freshmen are more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but mismatch causes blacks to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites.

Blacks who start college interested in pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched.

About half of black college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their classes (and the bottom 10 percent in law school).

Black law school graduates are four times as likely to fail bar exams as are whites; mismatch explains half of this gap.

So no, Scalia wasn’t actually saying he believed that blacks should be content to just go to lesser schools, he was asking about others who had argued as much. But even if he had, it isn’t crazy or racist to believe that advancing minority students from schools where they’d do great to schools where they’d struggle could have unintended negative effects.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-ju ... -question/

[Pyperkub]

So no, Scalia wasn’t actually saying he believed that blacks should be content to just go to lesser schools, he was asking about others who had argued as much.

True.

But even if he had, it isn’t crazy or racist to believe that advancing minority students from schools where they’d do great to schools where they’d struggle could have unintended negative effects.

False in most cases (as my article and a real study illustrates as compared to the amicus brief).

[Rip]

So no, Scalia wasn’t actually saying he believed that blacks should be content to just go to lesser schools, he was asking about others who had argued as much.

True.

But even if he had, it isn’t crazy or racist to believe that advancing minority students from schools where they’d do great to schools where they’d struggle could have unintended negative effects.

False in most cases (as my article and a real study illustrates as compared to the amicus brief).

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opini ... .html?_r=0

MUCH of the squabble over mismatch centers on differing interpretations of the Bar Passage Study. The B.P.S. was commissioned by the Law School Admission Council in 1989 to determine whether blacks and Hispanics had disproportionately poor bar-passage rates. In 1991, more than 27,000 incoming law students — about 2,000 of them black — completed questionnaires for the B.P.S. and gave permission to track their performance in law school and later on the bar.

Among other things, the questionnaire asked students (a) whether they got into their first-choice law school, (b) if so, whether they enrolled at their first choice, and (c) if not, why not.

Data showed that 689 of the approximately 2,000 black applicants got into their first-choice law school. About three-quarters of those 689 matriculated at their first choice. The remaining quarter opted instead for their second-choice school, often for financial or geographic reasons. So, of the 689 black applicants who got into their first choice, 512 went, and the rest, 177, attended their second choice, presumably a less prestigious institution.

This data presented a plausible opportunity to gauge mismatch. The fact that 689 black students got into their first-choice law school meant that all 689 were similar in at least that one regard (though possibly dissimilar in many other ways). If mismatch theory held any water, then the 177 students who voluntarily opted for their second-choice school — and were therefore theoretically better “matched” — could be expected, on average, to have better outcomes on the bar exam than their peers who chose the more elite school. Mr. Sander’s analysis of the B.P.S. data found that 21 percent of the black students who went to their second-choice schools failed the bar on their first attempt, compared with 34 percent of those who went to their first choice.

[Pyperkub]

And yes, Law school is one area where it is possible if you read the article I posted, as are Science degrees. Find me a liberal arts or non-science undergraduate case.

[Zarathud]

I blame the first choice schools as being less practical. My law school has a great bar passage rate (for specific reasons) while other prestigious law schools in the city are worse.

[Rip]

And yes, Law school is one area where it is possible if you read the article I posted, as are Science degrees. Find me a liberal arts or non-science undergraduate case.

I wonder if that isn't more about it being difficult to find a universal and reliable method of measuring the outcomes in liberal arts/non-science majors? Most of them don't have a "certification" exam the way law/medical/science degrees do.

[Pyperkub]

And yes, Law school is one area where it is possible if you read the article I posted, as are Science degrees. Find me a liberal arts or non-science undergraduate case.

I wonder if that isn't more about it being difficult to find a universal and reliable method of measuring the outcomes in liberal arts/non-science majors? Most of them don't have a "certification" exam the way law/medical/science degrees do.

Graduating.

[stessier]

Science degrees don't have a certification exam. There is the PE exam, but very few take that and it has nothing to do with graduating.

[PLW]

Why did they just look at black students? To do it right you'd want to contrast the black differential with the white differential.

[Isgrimnur]

This will have profound implications, especially when it comes to religion in the future.

Most everyone at the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed that the First Amendment protects a public employee in a non-political job from being fired or demoted for supporting a political candidate.

But in a case alternatively described as “bizarre” and more “like a law school hypothetical,” the question was what happens when the boss retaliates against an employee on the mistaken belief that the employee has asserted such support.
...
“The First Amendment talks about abridging freedom of speech, and I thought the case came to us on the proposition that he wasn’t engaging in speech at all,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, adding: “I’m not sure how he can say his freedom of speech has been abridged.”

On the other hand, Justice Elena Kagan warned that such a reading would be a threat to “every couch potato out there” — politically agnostic or uninterested government workers who might have no constitutional protection if their bosses set out to replace them with workers with more aligned political views.

“If somebody had come in to me before today’s argument and just said ‘Does the First Amendment prevent the government from punishing a person because that person does not share the government’s views?,’ I would have said, ‘Why, yes, of course the First Amendment protects that,’ ” Kagan told lawyer Thomas C. Goldstein, who was representing the city of Paterson.

“Now you’re telling me, no, the First Amendment does not prevent the government from punishing a person because that person doesn’t share the government’s views, unless that person is actively opposed to the government’s views.”
...
The court’s conservatives seemed to agree that Heffernan might have a legitimate beef but that he could not make a constitutional case out of it.

Justice Antonin Scalia was among the most outspoken. “The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech and freedom of association,” Scalia said. “Your client was neither speaking nor associating. So how could he possibly have a cause of action under the First Amendment?”
...
The Obama administration agreed with Heffernan, and Assistant Solicitor General Ginger D. Anders defined the officer’s rights this way: He “has a First Amendment right not to have adverse action taken against him by his employer for the unconstitutional purpose of suppressing disfavored political beliefs.”

Given that Scalia doesn't think that freedom of religion doesn't extend to freedom from religion, I would very much like to see him be on the losing side of this case, and the religious ones to follow.

[Rip]

That doesn't doesn't doesn't make any sense.

[Jaymann]

That doesn't doesn't doesn't make any sense.

But that's nothing compared to Hillary Clinton's nonsensical statements.

[Isgrimnur]

Eee-lectricity!

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to an administration-supported rule on Monday that promotes electricity conservation, handing a big victory to environmentalists and federal power regulators.

The 6-2 decision overturned a federal appeals panel ruling and affirmed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authority to offer incentives to reduce power consumption during peak demand periods by paying large users to curb their electricity use, policies that green groups say help open the power grid up to more renewable sources like wind and solar.

"Demand response" programs help grid operators avoid blackouts and keep consumer costs down, reducing the need for generators to turn on older, dirtier power plants.

Many power plant operators in electricity markets across the Northeast and parts of the Midwest have seen their profits shrink from lower energy prices, and they fear greater competition from demand response providers will further erode demand for electricity.

Those power companies had argued that the demand response rule had unfairly given FERC authority in the retail power markets, which have traditionally been governed by the states. But the court's ruling Monday affirmed the FERC's ability to regulate those programs since they affect the wholesale power market, and it said the agency had properly assessed how much the businesses that cut their power consumption should be paid.

The Federal Power Act "should not be read, against its clear terms, to halt a practice that so evidently enables FERC to fulfill its statutory duties of holding down prices and enhancing reliability in the wholesale energy market," the high court said in its ruling in the case, FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association.

In addition to the support of the court's more liberal justices, FERC’s demand response rule, known as Order No. 745, won the backing of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Justice Samuel Alito had recused himself from the case, leaving FERC's critics hoping for a 4-4 stalemate that would cement the appeals court decision to kill the regulation.

[Isgrimnur]

Monday

[T]he Court issued two summary rulings — that is, decisions made without full briefing and oral arguments. Each was issued in the name of the Court: “per curiam.”

In one, James v. Boise, Idaho, the Court chastised the Idaho Supreme Court for concluding that it was not bound by Supreme Court rulings dealing with the award of attorneys’ fees under federal civil rights law. It told the state court that it had no choice but to follow the Justices’ lead on an issue. In the second summary ruling, in Amgen Inc., v. Harris, the Court took its second look at a dispute over the duty of an employee benefit plan’s administrator to manage the plan’s assets with “prudence.” For the second time, the Justices told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its decisions in that case.
...
Among the series of denials of new cases, the Court declined to hear challengers over attorney’s fees that were awarded or denied by lower courts in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2013 in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, narrowing the scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One lower court awarded fees of $1.1 million against the state of Texas, in favor of Texas voters and officeholders who had opposed the state on the impact of the Shelby County ruling on a redistricting dispute. The Justices denied review of that on Tuesday in Texas v. Lynch.

Another lower court had denied Shelby County a fee claim of $2 million, concluding that its victory in the Voting Rights Act case did not serve the purposes that Congress had in mind in allowing fee recovery in civil rights cases. That decision was left intact by the Justices in the case of Shelby County v. Lynch.

In another order, the Court refused to hear a claim that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all circumstances — a plea made by a Pennsylvania death-row inmate. The case was Walter v. Pennsylvania.

[Isgrimnur]

Youthful criminals

No juvenile who commits murder or another serious crime can be sentenced to life without parole unless it is clear that the youth is doomed to a life of crime — that is, is so “corrupt” as to lack any capacity for reform, the Supreme Court ruled by a six-to-three vote on Monday. The decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, expanding on a major ruling four years ago, will also provide a chance for early release of a thousand or more inmates whose life sentences are now unconstitutional but were valid when imposed years earlier.

The ruling invites states not to spend time figuring out a new sentence to replace those now struck down, but rather to consider granting parole — release from prison but with conditions on future behavior.

But the ruling also allows states to avoid having to obey the new ruling for closed cases by simply removing from inmates the legal right to use federal law in state courts to attack life without parole sentences, once their convictions have become final in state courts. If states take that option, the impact of Monday’s ruling would fall on federal courts and the habeas process in those courts for reviewing convictions that are final.

[Rip]

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday abruptly halted President Obama's controversial new power plant regulations, dealing a blow to the administration's sweeping plan to address global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court halted enforcement of the plan until after legal challenges are resolved.

The surprising move is a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations "an unprecedented power grab."

By temporarily freezing the rule the high court's order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.

The court's four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.

The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02 ... tcmp=hpbt3

[Isgrimnur]

I wonder what the sentient plant species will look like that takes our place when humanity dies out.

[Max Peck]

I wonder what the sentient plant species will look like that takes our place when humanity dies out.

Based on the evidence, sentience may be overrated.

[Jaymann]

Apparently you will need to watch a long time before you hear a peep out of Clarance Thomas. One lame joke in the last decade.