« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Another bad day in the Supreme Court for Obama

By: tooncesthecat (Diary)  |  April 25th, 2012 at 12:41 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The day began with the SCOTUS announcing its decision in  United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC.   In a5 – 4 decision written by Justice Breyer, the court ruled against the Obama administration and the IRS attempt to impose additional taxes and penalties on Home Concrete even though the statutory limit of 3 years had passed.  The IRS simply decided to extend the limit to 6 years, unsuccesfully claiming extenuating circumstances as their justification.

Then the court heard oral arguments in Arizona v. United States concerning the constitutionality of Arizona’s immigration law.  It went so badly for the U.S. Attorney that at one point Justice Sotomayer told him to “move on, this isn’t selling.”  Mainly the Justices couldn’t get a handle of why the Obama administration was opposed to receiving state assistance in enforcing immigration laws and why states can’t check an individual’s citizenship status.

Looks like Good Guys 2, Obama 0.  If you’re keeping score.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • irishgirl

    n/t

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    The direction and sound of the questioning is one thing, and it sounds like a winner for the rest of us so far but nothing is certain until the Court issues it’s ruling on it.

    • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

      All for Arizona on this one.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    and that is perhaps a big warning to everyone of why the O needs to go…

    • The_Gadfly

      than against the Senators who allowed them to be passed through. We should expect the partisan in the White House to be pushing the limits on what he can do. The check against that is supposed to be the Senators representing their constituents.

      Frankly, one of the concerns we should all have about Romney is that since he too lacks a grounding in the Constitutional restraints as evidenced by his continuing defense of Romneycare, his nominations are not likely to improve that ratio.

      • Flagstaff

        did Kennedy go the other way? Or who?

        • Viet71

          The case here is significant, in part because the Supreme Court takes few tax cases. It’s a case of statutory interpretation, not constitutional law.

          Breyer, who wrote the majority opinion, stressed he was following precedent.

          Holds that misstating cost basis (negligently) so as to reduce reportable capital gain does not extend the usual three-year statute of limitations to six years. Technical stuff but important to taxpayers and tax lawyers.

          • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

            Thomas, Alito, and Roberts means that another vote is in play when it comes to 5 – 4 decisions, and that he is persuadable, particularly to arguments based on precedent.

            I believe there is an outside chance he at least write a supporting decision striking down the entire ObamaCare law when the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional 5 – 4 with Kennedy providing the initial 5th vote.

  • garfieldjl

    Seriously, they’re about the only ones that can put the brakes on Obama atm.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    Here the best exchange from this morning’s testimony:

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Anyway, what — what’s wrong about the states enforcing Federal law? There is a Federal law against robbing Federal banks. Can it be made a state crime to rob those banks? I think it is
    .
    GENERAL VERRILLI: I think it could, but I
    think that’s quite –

    JUSTICE SCALIA: But does the Attorney General come in and say, you know, we might really only want to go after the professional bank robbers? If it’s just an amateur bank robber, you know, we’re — we’re going the let it go. And the state’s interfering withour — with our whole scheme here because it’s prosecuting all these bank robbers.

    GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, of course, no one would –

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Now, would anybody listen to that argument?

    GENERAL VERRILLI: Of course not.

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Of course not.

    Read the transcript at:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-182.pdf

    The audio will be posted at the SCOTUS site tomorrow.

    • http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php kralizec

      …is a Godsend for conservatives! : )

  • checkmate2012

    The Left loves the Supreme Court ONLY when they rule in their favor, otherwise they “overstep their Constitutional bounds” per Obama and he definitely knows a thing or two on that subject.

    Guess he never learned you catch more flys with honey, as in dissing them in public and challenging a them to a bar brawl that only his majesty could possibly win. Jan Brewer rocks!

    • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

      If the Arizona law is upheld, he will tell the INS to tell state law enforcement that the Feds aren’t interested in detaining any illegals that they report. He fully intends to use the federal bureaucracy to thwart all efforts by Congress and the Courts to reign him in.

  • davenj1

    for the Arizona law. They seemed to be open to the checks on immigration status, but not other sections of the law like criminal sanctions on employees and registration. Still, the main part- Section 2- seemed to find a sympathetic ear. Since Kagan recused herself, a 4-4 decision would let stand the 9th Circuit’s decision against the law.

    • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

      Read the entire transcript. Sotomayer admits at one point that Verelli has totally confused her. Scalia repeatedly destroyed the federal government’s case. There are hundreds of examples of duplicate federal and state laws. If an employer can be punished for accepting fraudulent information by the state, then there is no rationale for the state not being able to hold the employee to account. Long discussion in the transcript about a state protecting its borders–being able to prohibit importation of invasive plants and species, for example. This whole law is going to be upheld, and my guess is that it won’t even be close.

      • The_Gadfly

        with which to cover her activism in the government’s case, this will be a huge slapdown not only of The Big 0, but the 9th circuit as well. That would be at least a 6-2 decision. Before the reports on the oral arguments, I’d been figuring on a 5-3 decision upholding the checks part because Kennedy always wants to be seen as being reasonable, and the check doesn’t require the feds to do anything. On the state enforcement bits I was less optimistic. These arguments change my whole perception of the case.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    I think there is considerable reason to be optimistic. Sotomayer was clearly frustrating, saying at one point to Verelli, “I’m confused.” When the SG confuses his major ally on the court that’s a very good sign.

    Also, on state enforcement, there are clearly lots of examples, where the feds actually don’t pursue violators of a law, but the states do. The feds for example only go after major drug trafficers, while many states will arrest someone for an ounce of marijuana or a couple of rocks of cocaine. Striking down the state criminalization provision with penalities would set a really bad precedent.

    Another big thing was that Roberts got Verelli to take “racial profiling” off the table at the very beginning of the hearing. That’s the reason behind all the protesters and Verelli hung them out to dry.