PDA

View Full Version : Make your SCOTUS predictions here!



Applejack
05-28-2013, 12:57 PM
The next four weeks should see the Supreme Court issue rulings in four important cases. I know that there are some SCOTUSwhores on this site, so let's prove once and for all who has their pulse on the court is the best guesser.

Here are the cases I am watching (feel free to add your own):



Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: affirmative action in admission decisions
United States v. Windsor: questions the legality of portions of the Defense of Marriage Act;
Hollingsworth v. Perry: Prop-8;
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics: about the patent-eligibility of genes (which has just recently started being referred to as ‘the Angelina Jolie case,’ could affect the cost and availability of genetic testing, not to mention the U's income stream [the U owns a chunk of Myriad Genetics]).


I'll go first:

Fisher: My guess is that no opinion issues this term. The court took another affirmative action case from Michigan for next term (Schuette) - I think they will bundle the two together. (Note: Justice Kagan is recused in both cases).
Windsor: I think the court overturns Sec 3 of DOMA, 5-4 (liberals plus Kennedy vs. conservatives).
Perry: This is tough, but I think the court punts on standing.
Myriad: I'm going out on a limb here - 8-1 the court strikes down patents on "isolated" DNA sequences, but upholds patents on synthetically-created versions of those genes. (Breyer is my dissenter - he would do away with all gene patents).

Applejack
06-13-2013, 03:45 PM
Myriad: I'm going out on a limb here - 8-1 the court strikes down patents on "isolated" DNA sequences, but upholds patents on synthetically-created versions of those genes. (Breyer is my dissenter - he would do away with all gene patents).






Swish!*







* So I missed one vote, so what. That's still a swish in my book.

Dawminator
06-13-2013, 07:41 PM
Myriad was an easy case to decide. The Myriad attorneys did an awful job arguing their case at oral arguments.

Myriad is very much related to the University of Utah so it is kind of a shame in some regards they didn't win.

Applejack
06-14-2013, 07:41 AM
Myriad was an easy case to decide. The Myriad attorneys did an awful job arguing their case at oral arguments.

Myriad is very much related to the University of Utah so it is kind of a shame in some regards they didn't win.

The thing is, this decision really won't impact Myriad's business right now. With the patents that were upheld, they can still stop anyone else from running these tests.

concerned
06-14-2013, 08:54 AM
The next four weeks should see the Supreme Court issue rulings in four important cases. I know that there are some SCOTUSwhores on this site, so let's prove once and for all who has their pulse on the court is the best guesser.

Here are the cases I am watching (feel free to add your own):



Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: affirmative action in admission decisions
United States v. Windsor: questions the legality of portions of the Defense of Marriage Act;
Hollingsworth v. Perry: Prop-8;
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics: about the patent-eligibility of genes (which has just recently started being referred to as ‘the Angelina Jolie case,’ could affect the cost and availability of genetic testing, not to mention the U's income stream [the U owns a chunk of Myriad Genetics]).


I'll go first:

Fisher: My guess is that no opinion issues this term. The court took another affirmative action case from Michigan for next term (Schuette) - I think they will bundle the two together. (Note: Justice Kagan is recused in both cases).
Windsor: I think the court overturns Sec 3 of DOMA, 5-4 (liberals plus Kennedy vs. conservatives).
Perry: This is tough, but I think the court punts on standing.
Myriad: I'm going out on a limb here - 8-1 the court strikes down patents on "isolated" DNA sequences, but upholds patents on synthetically-created versions of those genes. (Breyer is my dissenter - he would do away with all gene patents).






FWIW, I agree with you on DOMA and Prop 8. DOMA may not even be 5-4. Prop 8 will go back with no ruling on the merits, no ban on gay marriage in California, and no ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage generally. $.02

Here is Linda Greenhouse's comment today on the aff action cases.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/whats-your-hurry/

wuapinmon
06-14-2013, 09:02 AM
I would hope that the court would show some backbone and uphold the 14th Amendment and declare gay marriage bans unconstitutional.

Applejack
06-26-2013, 08:34 AM
Fisher: My guess is that no opinion issues this term. The court took another affirmative action case from Michigan for next term (Schuette) - I think they will bundle the two together. (Note: Justice Kagan is recused in both cases).
Windsor: I think the court overturns Sec 3 of DOMA, 5-4 (liberals plus Kennedy vs. conservatives).
Perry: This is tough, but I think the court punts on standing.
Myriad: I'm going out on a limb here - 8-1 the court strikes down patents on "isolated" DNA sequences, but upholds patents on synthetically-created versions of those genes. (Breyer is my dissenter - he would do away with all gene patents).




Airball, swish, swish, swish!

concerned
06-26-2013, 08:37 AM
[/LEFT]

Airball, swish, swish, swish!

Lucky for you that you didnt have to pick the alignment in Perry. Scalia in the majority? Sotomayor in dissent?

Applejack
06-26-2013, 08:49 AM
Lucky for you that you didnt have to pick the alignment in Perry. Scalia in the majority? Sotomayor in dissent?

Agreed. Scalia and Roberts joining forces with Kagan.

LA Ute
06-26-2013, 08:55 AM
As far as I am concerned, the court system has spoken and now we just move on. I'm actually relieved.

I do think the system spoke in an awkward and ugly way. Consider: Now, if the voters in a state pass anything by initiative, and the state's elected officials refuse to defend the statute, it has no chance of surviving. This now appears to be a matter of Constitutional law. That's just interesting, no matter how you feel about the outcome. What kind of result could that produce in Utah, for example, with its wall-to-wall conservative Republicans in state offices?

A separate state-by-state question is what the duties of state officers are under their state constitutions. The AG, in most states and at the federal level, has the duty to defend state statutes and the state constitution. I wonder how that plays out? It is probably a hard duty to enforce.

Also, the lineup of justices is weird. Roberts, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Scalia in the majority. Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Sotomayor in the minority. :blink:

concerned
06-26-2013, 09:01 AM
As far as I am concerned, the court system has spoken and now we just move on. I'm actually relieved.

I do think the system spoke in an awkward and ugly way. Consider: Now, if the voters in a state pass anything by initiative, and the state's elected officials refuse to defend the statute, it has no chance of surviving. This now appears to be a matter of Constitutional law. That's just interesting, no matter how you feel about the outcome. What kind of result could that produce in Utah, for example, with its wall-to-wall conservative Republicans in state offices?

A separate state-by-state question is what the duties of state officers are under their state constitutions. The AG, in most states and at the federal level, has the duty to defend state statutes and the state constitution. I wonder how that plays out? It is probably a hard duty to enforce.

Also, the lineup of justices is weird. Roberts, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Scalia in the majority. Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Sotomayor in the minority. :blink:

Do you think the Church would ever get involved in a citizen's petition in another state, or in California if the elected officials changed?

LA Ute
06-26-2013, 09:03 AM
Do you think the Church would ever get involved in a citizen's petition in another state, or in California if the elected officials changed?

My crystal ball (often wrong, always in doubt) says no. Not on gay marriage, anyway.

LA Ute
06-26-2013, 09:06 AM
This is an interesting breakdown of what the law is now in California:

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=158115

Applejack
06-26-2013, 09:08 AM
As far as I am concerned, the court system has spoken and now we just move on. I'm actually relieved.

I do think the system spoke in an awkward and ugly way. Consider: Now, if the voters in a state pass anything by initiative, and the state's elected officials refuse to defend the statute, it has no chance of surviving. This now appears to be a matter of Constitutional law. That's just interesting, no matter how you feel about the outcome. What kind of result could that produce in Utah, for example, with its wall-to-wall conservative Republicans in state offices?

A separate state-by-state question is what the duties of state officers are under their state constitutions. The AG, in most states and at the federal level, has the duty to defend state statutes and the state constitution. I wonder how that plays out? It is probably a hard duty to enforce.

Also, the lineup of justices is weird. Roberts, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Scalia in the majority. Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Sotomayor in the minority. :blink:

I don't think it will be that awkward going forward. States with an initiative process (Utah doesn't have one, right?) will just have to pass some law that requires the AG to defend petition-passed laws. That would seem to fix any standing problems. States that aren't serious about petitions might choose not to pass such a law, which would be a sort of petition-lite--"we allow petitions but we don't promise that we will enforce all your crazy laws, voters."

I agree that the Prop 8 ruling is a weird one. But it appears that at least 5 justices (and an interesting split, as you note) had no interest is deciding on whether gay marriage is a constitutional right.

concerned
06-26-2013, 09:19 AM
I don't think it will be that awkward going forward. States with an initiative process (Utah doesn't have one, right?) will just have to pass some law that requires the AG to defend petition-passed laws. That would seem to fix any standing problems. States that aren't serious about petitions might choose not to pass such a law, which would be a sort of petition-lite--"we allow petitions but we don't promise that we will enforce all your crazy laws, voters."

I agree that the Prop 8 ruling is a weird one. But it appears that at least 5 justices (and an interesting split, as you note) had no interest is deciding on whether gay marriage is a constitutional right.

interesting that they decided Windsor on equal protection/due process rather than states rights; creates a heightend level of scrutiny for smae sex marriage; it is not rational basis anymore, even if it is undefined.

LA Ute
06-26-2013, 12:55 PM
I don't think it will be that awkward going forward. States with an initiative process (Utah doesn't have one, right?) will just have to pass some law that requires the AG to defend petition-passed laws. That would seem to fix any standing problems.

California has a veto-proof, filibuster-proof liberal Democratic majority in its legislature, so no such law is likely in the near future. (We are kind of the mirror image of Utah in that regard.) The irony is that CA's initiative process was set up decades ago to give the people a voice when the legislature is unresponsive.

Scratch
06-26-2013, 01:39 PM
California has a veto-proof, filibuster-proof liberal Democratic majority in its legislature, so no such law is likely in the near future. (We are kind of the mirror image of Utah in that regard.) The irony is that CA's initiative process was set up decades ago to give the people a voice when the legislature is unresponsive.

Couldn't an individual bring a writ of mandate against the AG? Seems like there could be a reasonable argument for doing so here.

LA Ute
06-26-2013, 01:51 PM
Couldn't an individual bring a writ of mandate against the AG? Seems like there could be a reasonable argument for doing so here.

Good question. Not sure if there is an express statutory duty to defend the law.

This is what the Wall Street Journal's Political Diary said today, which I found persuasive:



Gee, as if Democrats in California needed any more power. The Supreme Court's punt on Proposition 8—a state ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage that voters approved in 2008—effectively gives Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris a veto on litigated laws that have been propounded and passed by the people of California.

Recall that both Mr. Brown and Ms. Harris declined to defend the initiative against a challenge in federal courts. Thus, the initiative's proponents took on the job, as permitted by the California Supreme Court. However, an ideologically mixed majority on the court (which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) has ruled that they lacked standing to do so.

"Once the District Court issued its order," which was to strike down Prop. 8, "respondents no longer had any injury to redress, and the state officials chose not to appeal. The only individuals who sought to appeal were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court, but they had not been ordered to do or refrain from doing anything," wrote the chief justice for the majority. Thus, the lower court's decision holds.

Many Californians are no doubt celebrating the decision. Public opinion has swung sharply in favor of same-sex marriage since a bare 51% majority of voters approved the ban five years ago. However, the decision is a huge blow to the principle of popular sovereignty, which underlies California's initiative process.
California's initiative system originated in 1911 to bypass entrenched and often unaccountable state politicians. As Justice Anthony Kennedy points out in his dissent (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor), "the initiative system 'grew out of dissatisfaction with the then governing public officials and a widespread belief that the people had lost control of the political process.'"

As the California Supreme Court has determined, "this purpose is undermined if the very officials the initiative process seeks to circumvent are the only parties who can defend an enacted initiative when it is challenged in a legal proceeding . . . Giving the Governor and attorney general this de facto veto will erode one of the cornerstones of the State's governmental structure.

"And in light of the frequency with which initiatives' opponents resort to litigation"—over one-third of the initiatives approved in Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington between 1900 and 2008 were challenged in court—"the impact of that veto could be substantial."

The court's ruling means that state officials and a single district court will be able to nullify initiatives on every thing from school choice to tax reform. The danger is particularly acute in California, where federal courts with jurisdiction are notoriously liberal, though the implications extend to any of the 26 other states with an initiative or popular referendum system.

Liberals may rejoice now, but perhaps they should consider the flip side: a Republican governor and attorney general who refuse to defend, say, an environmental initiative which is struck down by a federal court. Liberal proponents would no doubt want to appeal, but by the court's reasoning they couldn't.

As I said on another (cough) message board, I wonder why the Court didn't fashion a narrow ruling that would have allowed standing on these unusual facts? That would have avoided opening the floodgates to suits by aggrieved citizens, which is what I have always understood standing to be about. But maybe they did consider that and the votes just weren't there.

Scratch
06-26-2013, 02:08 PM
Thanks. I suppose there's a pretty strong argument that there's a difference between an AG's duty to defend an affirmative lawsuit challenging a statute and an AG's duty to push appellate remedies.

LA Ute
06-26-2013, 02:24 PM
Church Responds to Supreme Court Marriage Rulings (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)


Salt Lake City —

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement today regarding the decisions announced by the United States Supreme Court on cases involving marriage:

"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

"In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved.

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states."

Sullyute
06-26-2013, 04:25 PM
Church Responds to Supreme Court Marriage Rulings (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)

I don't have any problem with the church's response in the last paragraph but wish they would have cut out the last sentence.

LA Ute
06-26-2013, 04:52 PM
I don't have any problem with the church's response in the last paragraph but wish they would have cut out the last sentence.

Their lawyers probably talked them into adding it.

LA Ute
06-26-2013, 05:45 PM
LDS, Catholic and other religious leaders react to DOMA, Prop 8 Supreme Court rulings (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865582248/LDS-Catholic-and-other-religious-leaders-react-to-DOMA-Prop-8-Supreme-Court-rulings.html?s_cid=Email-2)

Mormons, Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Baptists, Episcopalian voices here, among others.

I thought this was a nice sentiment from the Episcopal Bishop, who is happy about the decisions:


“I am well aware that others believe that the action of the Supreme Court is wrong,” Bishop Hayashi continued. “For these people these decisions are a cause for upset, unhappiness and frustration. My happiness is tempered with this knowledge. Understanding, compassion and prayer for people who deplore this decision is important. They are also made in the image of God. I will be offering my prayers for them and I will continue to welcome them into The Episcopal Church.”

concerned
06-27-2013, 06:09 AM
I haven't seen this point addressed anywhere (havent looked closely), but I presume for federal purposes, the fed govt must recognize gay marriage regardless of where you live. So if you are married in Calif or New York, but live in Utah you file the same estate tax return as Edie Windsor would now. Even though Utah bans gay marriage for Utah state purposes. The Utah amendment III doesn't invalidate a New York marriage for federal purposes, even if you live in Utah.

Applejack
06-27-2013, 08:34 AM
I haven't seen this point addressed anywhere (havent looked closely), but I presume for federal purposes, the fed govt must recognize gay marriage regardless of where you live. So if you are married in Calif or New York, but live in Utah you file the same estate tax return as Edie Windsor would now. Even though Utah bans gay marriage for Utah state purposes. The Utah amendment III doesn't invalidate a New York marriage for federal purposes, even if you live in Utah.

I think this is an open question. My guess is that it will be decided at the Administrative level (i.e., the IRS!!!!! Conservatives are screwed!!!!). My guess is that the Federal Government will do exactly as you suggest - if you were legally married somewhere, you can file a married-filing-jointly return.

As I understand it, a lot of states require you to file state returns under the same status as your federal return (I vaguely remember this to be true in CA). Those states might change their practices in order not to allow gays to file joint state returns.

concerned
06-27-2013, 08:51 AM
I think this is an open question. My guess is that it will be decided at the Administrative level (i.e., the IRS!!!!! Conservatives are screwed!!!!). My guess is that the Federal Government will do exactly as you suggest - if you were legally married somewhere, you can file a married-filing-jointly return.

As I understand it, a lot of states require you to file state returns under the same status as your federal return (I vaguely remember this to be true in CA). Those states might change their practices in order not to allow gays to file joint state returns.

yep. I would assume you have a file one way for federal purposes, but another way for state purposes.

SavaUte
06-27-2013, 11:34 AM
One thing I haven't really heard anyone mention....

Conservatives everywhere should be happy about this. Basically it takes one federal law off the books, giving states more rights and limiting the power of the federal government.

I am personally torn on the gay marriage issue, but I am happy to see it will be left to the states to do it or not, rather than Washington telling everyone how it will be.