The Supreme Court has five more decisions left to hand out, most notably on the Arizona immigration case and the Obamacare issue. Monday is the last day they are scheduled to hand out decisions, but it seems like a foregone conclusion that they'll have at least one more day after that. Naturally, any showman worth his salt saves the best for last, and I expect that we won't be hearing the decision on Obamacare until the last possible moment.
In case you haven't been hanging on every word to come out of the SCOTUS lately, here's a summary of what's to come this week.
1: United States v. Alvarez
What it is: Alvarez is the scumbug...I mean...alleged scumbag...Who erroneously claimed to have earned the Medal of Honor and was prosecuted under the Stolen Valor act, which criminalizes false claims of military honor. (Side note: Why the MoH? If you're going to claim a false medal, do something a tad less flashy, like a DSC or a silver star. Both very respectable medals without the blatant "Only ten people have earned that in the last few wars there, jackass" angle). The contention here is that lying about receiving medals is protected speech under the 1st amendment. The counter argument is that while some forms of lying are beneath the notice of the law (for example, claiming you are a doctor in order to get laid), military honors and the benefits, both tangible and intangible, are a kind of "trademark" of the government, and therefore the 1st amendment does not apply.
Actual lawyer analysis here.
Why it matters: This is the first law to test the Constitutionality of said law. Should it be overturned, Congress will likely respond with an already drafted amended version of the same law that will bring it in line with the Justice's opinions.
My guess: The court will uphold the law, but make an extremely fine distinction between lying to obtain government sanctioned benefits and lying to get a woman to sleep with you. 5-4.
2: Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs
What it is: Two cases are being reviewed where convicted murderers have been sentenced to life without parole. In one case the convict broke into a motor home, stole $350 worth of baseball cards, then beat the homeowner unconscious with a baseball bat (This guy really likes baseball), and then set the motor home on fire with the homeowner still inside.
The other case was a bit less baseball centered and more mundane. Guy walks into a store with a shotgun. Demands money. Clerk says "I ain't got no money" and dude blasts him away.
The argument is whether a sentence of life without parole is "cruel and unusual" and a violation of their 8th amendment rights.
Why it matters: Did I mention both convicts were 14 years old at the time of the murder? That's right: When I was still running around pretending to be the best Ninja Turtle (Donatello, obviously), these two kids were setting people on fire over baseball cards. The convictions aren't contested, only that a life sentence without parole is excessive for a minor. The defense wants the "without parole" part removed.
My guess: The court will overturn the without parole part of the sentencing, which is in line with previous decisions regarding punishments in non-homicidal and/or setting people on fire cases. 6-3
3: First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards
What it is: Some discussion on whether companies can enter into kickback agreements or something.
Why it matters: It doesn't.
My guess: 15-2, Orioles lose.
Who cares: Nobody, least of all me. Moving on.
In case you haven't been hanging on every word to come out of the SCOTUS lately, here's a summary of what's to come this week.
1: United States v. Alvarez
What it is: Alvarez is the scumbug...I mean...alleged scumbag...Who erroneously claimed to have earned the Medal of Honor and was prosecuted under the Stolen Valor act, which criminalizes false claims of military honor. (Side note: Why the MoH? If you're going to claim a false medal, do something a tad less flashy, like a DSC or a silver star. Both very respectable medals without the blatant "Only ten people have earned that in the last few wars there, jackass" angle). The contention here is that lying about receiving medals is protected speech under the 1st amendment. The counter argument is that while some forms of lying are beneath the notice of the law (for example, claiming you are a doctor in order to get laid), military honors and the benefits, both tangible and intangible, are a kind of "trademark" of the government, and therefore the 1st amendment does not apply.
Actual lawyer analysis here.
Why it matters: This is the first law to test the Constitutionality of said law. Should it be overturned, Congress will likely respond with an already drafted amended version of the same law that will bring it in line with the Justice's opinions.
My guess: The court will uphold the law, but make an extremely fine distinction between lying to obtain government sanctioned benefits and lying to get a woman to sleep with you. 5-4.
2: Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs
What it is: Two cases are being reviewed where convicted murderers have been sentenced to life without parole. In one case the convict broke into a motor home, stole $350 worth of baseball cards, then beat the homeowner unconscious with a baseball bat (This guy really likes baseball), and then set the motor home on fire with the homeowner still inside.
The other case was a bit less baseball centered and more mundane. Guy walks into a store with a shotgun. Demands money. Clerk says "I ain't got no money" and dude blasts him away.
The argument is whether a sentence of life without parole is "cruel and unusual" and a violation of their 8th amendment rights.
Why it matters: Did I mention both convicts were 14 years old at the time of the murder? That's right: When I was still running around pretending to be the best Ninja Turtle (Donatello, obviously), these two kids were setting people on fire over baseball cards. The convictions aren't contested, only that a life sentence without parole is excessive for a minor. The defense wants the "without parole" part removed.
My guess: The court will overturn the without parole part of the sentencing, which is in line with previous decisions regarding punishments in non-homicidal and/or setting people on fire cases. 6-3
3: First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards
What it is: Some discussion on whether companies can enter into kickback agreements or something.
Why it matters: It doesn't.
My guess: 15-2, Orioles lose.
Who cares: Nobody, least of all me. Moving on.
4: Arizona v. United States
What it is: Read my blog about it here. Basically, the question is can the State of Arizona round up illegal immigrants by requiring anyone arrested for anything, regardless of race, be checked for citizenship status. Anyone found to be in the country illegally would then be referred to the Feds.
Why it matters: This case determines how tough a state can get on immigration. It is not contested that immigration is clearly the Federal government's job (one it does remarkably poorly, of course). What is contested is how far a State can go to put illegals into the government's hands.
My guess: Arizona comes out triumphant, and the States win over the Feds for once. 5-4.
5: HHS v. Florida, Florida v. HHS, and NFIB v. Sebelius (AKA Obamacare)
What it is: If you just asked that question, please punch yourself in the face. Hard. Then read my blog about it here.
Why it matters: This will determine the scope of the Federal government's authority to regulate healthcare. Big questions include: Can they create commerce in order to regulate it? Is the lack of commerce also commerce? Can the government FORCE you to buy healthcare, or face a fine if you do not?
My guess: ...is as good as yours. Constitutional lawyers and SCOTUS clerks think the mandate is dead. The public wants the law gone. I pretty sure the mandate is done for, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say they'll strike the whole law down, with the opinion making it clear they did so because the mandate was so central to the proper functioning of the law and a failure to strike the whole thing would be tantamount to legislating from the bench. 5-4.
No comments:
Post a Comment