Posts Tagged ‘Anthony Kennedy’
Saturday Morning Links!
* Great piece at n+1 on the late Daniel Quinn. I think this persuaded me to teach Ishmael this fall; I’ve been thinking about doing it for years and the time seems right. I really loved the book when I was 18, and think about it a lot even now.
* Kim Stanley Robinson at the Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology: Science Fiction Is the Realism of our Time.
* And a bonus podcast: my friend Isiah Lavender on Minister Faust’s podcast, talking about the pan-African response to Black Panther. (Isiah’s actually in the extended edition, available for free on Faust’s Patreon.)
* The science fiction of this century is one in which great existential threats are known: they are real, and terrible. Something is terribly wrong. Will we listen?
* A decade ago, The Wire series finale aired. The show was a Marxist’s idea of what TV drama should be.
* Artificial intelligence has a hallucination problem.
* Turns out they already made a Sopranos prequel.
* There Is No Case for the Humanities.
* There Is No Campus Free Speech Crisis: An Unreasonably Long Thread.
* “‘Schools will stay closed until we get what we are asking for,’ Oklahoma teachers union president says.” And next: Arizona?
* “Foreigners could ease Japan’s labor shortage, but Tokyo prefers robots.”
* Deputy sheriff jails ex-wife after she complained on Facebook about him. This should be an automatic firing, followed by prosecution.
* Trump’s Latest Pardon Shows The Best Way To Get One: Go On Fox News.
* How do 11 people go to jail for one murder?
* New evidence the Stormy Daniels payment may have violated election law.
Friday Night
* Higher Ed as Cheesecake Factory. Reply from Beatrice Marovich. Reply from Ian Bogost.
* Scenes from the class struggle at Cooper Union.
Meanwhile, during most of these years, Harvard’s own endowment has annually grown by five or ten or even twenty times that figure, rendering net tuition from those thousands of students a mere financial bagatelle, having almost no impact on the university’s cash-flow or balance-sheet position. If all the students disappeared tomorrow—or were forced to pay double their current tuition—the impact would be negligible compared to the crucial fluctuations in the mortgage-derivatives market or the international cost-of-funds index.
* “Fox News Op-Ed Says Women’s Nature Is To Be Dominated By Men.” GO HOME FOX NEWS YOU ARE DRUNK
* If you’re gay, your basic civil rights now depend on what mood Anthony Kennedy is in when he wakes up in the morning. Like the Founders intended!
* Vice President Joe Biden is quietly working with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to try to pass an inclusive version of the Violence Against Women Act in the lame-duck Congress. And so far, sources tell HuffPost, Cantor is on board as long as one thing is stripped from the bill: a key protection for Native American women.
* What Are the Near-Term Climate Pearl Harbors? What a weird analogy, especially with “climate change fiscal cliff” just sitting there.
* This is the kind of obscene administrative blight you normally only see on a college campus:
Denver Public Schools plans to buy a 13-story building at 1860 Lincoln St. downtown to house its administration offices and the Emily Griffith Technical College.
According to a memo Superintendent Tom Boasberg emailed late Thursday to DPS staff and the board of directors, DPS is buying the 330,000-square-foot building with $24 million in bond money approved by Denver voters on Nov. 6.
* Why the NCAA Doesn’t Care about Concussions.
What happened to Whitmer wasn’t a mistake in NCAA concussion protocol for the simple reason that there isn’t an NCAA concussion protocol. The ambiguity is by design—in order to remain legally blameless, the association can’t involve itself too closely in the health of the athletes. That’s why the job of devising a response to head injuries is left to the schools themselves. As a consequence, when football programs obfuscate what exactly happened to a woozy-looking quarterback, there’s no one—not the local beat writer, and most certainly not an NCAA investigator—to hold them to account. In both the pros and in college football, the risk of legal liability is dictating the response to a medical crisis.
* The War on Superman’s Underpants.
* Your sleight of hand of the day.
* Pennsylvania still wants to rig the electoral college.
* Arrested Development NES Games.
* Moon flights for a mere $750 million. Back to the Future With 1970s Space Colonies.
* And you won’t have Kevin Smith to kick around anymore. Didn’t he do this same thing a few years ago?
Arc of History Watch
Here, too, this Court finds that Congress cannot, like an ostrich, merely bury its head in the sand and wait for danger to pass, especially at the risk of permitting continued constitutional injury upon legally married couples. The fact that the issue is socially divisive does nothing to relieve the judiciary of its obligation to examine the constitutionality of the discriminating classifications in the law.
A Bush appointee has found DOMA unconstitutional. Your move, Justice Kennedy…
Wednesday Night!
* Duke Lit is now advertising for a one-year postdoc in Marxist theory.
* Jim Henson, 1969: How to Make a Muppet. Also on Muppetwatch: A 1979 profile of Henson in anticipation of The Muppet Movie.
* The secret history of “Mahna Mahna”: “How a ditty from a soft-core Italian movie became the Muppets’ catchiest tune.”
* “Ninety-Nine Weeks”: an Occupy Wall Street fairy tale from Ursula K. Le Guin. Here’s another.
* More on the extraordinary syllabi of David Foster Wallace.
* Almost literally the least they could do: Davis Will Drop Charges Against, Pay Medical Bills of Pepper Spray Students.
* I’ve seen this movie: The Air Force “has asked industry to develop a new heat and motion sensor capable of detecting enemy gunfire from 25,000 feet over the battlefield — and then swiftly directing a bomb or missile onto the shooter.” I believe Terminator suggests the name HKs…
* The full congregation of Raleigh’s Pullen Memorial Baptist Church voted Sunday to prohibit the church pastor from legally marrying anyone until she can legally marry same-sex couples under North Carolina law.
* Michael Bailey and Forrest Maltzman say their poli-sci model shows the Affordable Care Act will be upheld. Scott Lemieux says there’s no reason to think they’ll confine themselves to precedent and that it still all comes down to what Anthony Kennedy has for breakfast.
* Mother Jones reads Newt Gingrich’s dissertation.
* Google greets Thanksgiving (outside the US) with the mother of all interactive doodles.
* Massachusetts becomes 16th state to protect transgender people from discrimination. Google benefits now include transgender employees.
* Honestly, anyone who invested a dime in Groupon should have their investing license taken away. This thing was barely ever a company.
* And speaking of obvious scams: Is a Law Degree a Good Investment Today?
Is Health Care Reform Constitutional, Part One Billion
I’m away for the weekend, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that the 11th Circuit just played a round of “Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?” The answer may surprise you! Some quick takes on why they’re wrong.
Meanwhile, Orin Kerr tries to predict the whims of SCOTUS:
Here are my guesses. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg are pretty obvious votes for the mandate, as they dissented in United States v. Lopez. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor seem like safe votes for the mandate, even if only for the reason that there is almost no opposition to the constitutionality of the mandate in the Democratic establishment from which they were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts will likely vote to uphold the mandate given the very expansive views of the Necessary and Proper clause that he signed on to just recently in United States v. Comstock. I suspect Justice Kennedy will vote to uphold the mandate given his concurring opinion in United States v. Lopez. And I’m pretty sure Justice Thomas will vote to strike down the mandate given his views of the Commerce Clause. In contrast, I don’t have good sense of where Justices Scalia and Alito might come out.
Putting the numbers together, I expect 6 votes for the mandate, 1 against, and 2 uncertain. If my numbers are right, the mandate will be upheld by a vote of anywhere from 6-3 to 8-1.
Personally I will be shocked if the final vote is anything but 5-4.
A Battle between the Text and History of the Constitution and Political Expedience
Scott Lemieux plays “Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?”
The “activity/inactivity” distinction is less a serious argument than an ad hoc, outcome-oriented attempt to strike down one particular law without threatening other popular federal programs.
As Lemieux notes, this doesn’t mean defenders of the ACA will win—but it does mean they’re right.
A Political Objection in Legal Garb
Laurence Tribe takes “Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?” for a ride.
But the predictions of a partisan 5-4 split rest on a misunderstanding of the court and the Constitution. The constitutionality of the health care law is not one of those novel, one-off issues, like the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, that have at times created the impression of Supreme Court justices as political actors rather than legal analysts.
Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. By that standard, this law’s constitutionality is open and shut. Does anyone doubt that the multitrillion-dollar health insurance industry is an interstate market that Congress has the power to regulate?
With respect to the mandate, he takes on the sophistry that asserts a constitutionally relevant difference between “activity” and “inactivity” as well:
The justices aren’t likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic “activity,” not “inactivity,” like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system. They know that if they need emergency-room care that they can’t pay for, the public will pick up the tab. This conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation.
Even if the interstate commerce clause did not suffice to uphold mandatory insurance, the even broader power of Congress to impose taxes would surely do so. After all, the individual mandate is enforced through taxation, even if supporters have been reluctant to point that out.
He seems to go so far as to predict an 8-1 decision in favor of the ACA, with only Thomas as the lone dissenter:
To imagine Justice Scalia would abandon that fundamental understanding of the Constitution’s necessary and proper clause because he was appointed by a Republican president is to insult both his intellect and his integrity. […] Only a crude prediction that justices will vote based on politics rather than principle would lead anybody to imagine that Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito would agree with the judges in Florida and Virginia who have ruled against the health care law.
I think Scalia’s intellect and integrity are highly overrated, and think Roberts and Alito will almost certainly vote on politics rather than principle—so I’m still predicting a 4-5 verdict in favor of the ACA, Justice Kennedy for the save. Prove me wrong, kids! Prove me wrong.