Image 01 Image 03

Preparing for Supreme Court opinion-release-aggeddon.

Preparing for Supreme Court opinion-release-aggeddon.

There are several really important Supreme Court decisions to be handed down tomorrow at 10 a.m., Monday at 10 a.m., or next Thursday at 10 a.m.

ScotusBlog has a “plain English” summary of the remaining cases, and almost all have huge legal implications (forced union contributions for political purposes, whether FCC indecency standards are unconstitutionally vague, and one which by analogy might be of interest to a certain senatorial candidate, whether a law making it a crime to lie about having received military honors violates the First Amendment).

But let’s face it, the two biggies are the decisions in Arizona v. U.S. over the Arizona immigration law and, by far the biggiest of the biggies, the Obamacare ruling.

When either of those come down, the air will be sucked out of the media on all other issues.  If they are handed down the same day, the nation might collapse from lack of oxygen.

I hope they don’t hold either of the biggies until next Thursday, out of deference for the desire of bloggers not to have to work too hard during any part of the pre-July 4th weekend.

Prepare for opinion-release-aggeddon.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Arizona v. U.S. was argued late, so most expect it to come on the last day.

Frank Scarn | June 20, 2012 at 5:02 pm

“In so ruling today we necessarily vacate and over-rule our opinion in Wickard v. Filburn.”

— From the dream of one who wishes that fedgov would abide by the actual words of the Constitution – and by that fact alone become one-tenth the size it is today.

I can type and fire off fire works at the same time. I am that good.

I would guess both the Arizona and Obamacare cases to come late.

Completely agree. That would be the best of all possible outcomes, obviously following a ruling that the “individual mandate” is not only unconstitutional but inseparable from the rest of the whole damn mess. A reversal of Wickard, though, would probably only accompany a 6-3 ruling or better. IANAL but I would bet the best we can hope for is that the “individual mandate” is unconstitutional.

Intrade gives a 75% chance that the individual mandate will be struck down.

In the coming campaign, the Democrats get to explain why they devoted the first year of the most dangerous economic crisis in eighty years to healthcare legislation. If the mandate is invalidated, they get to explain why they devoted the first year of the most dangerous economic crisis in eighty years to ramming through unconstitutional healthcare legislation.

I’m preparing for the “long haul.” Not just next week, next month, nor Nov, nor Jan. The “long haul” because we have a divided nation (divided Congress, divided SCOTUS, a people divided over the current president, cultural divisions) and I think it’s going to continue to be so for quite a number of years.

Both the Arizona case and the Obamacare case will come down to a predictable 5-4 vote. We know that Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Bryer will rule in favor of any that that furthers socialism. Alito, Edwards, Scalia and Roberts being predictable Constitutionalists, will rule in favor of the Constitution.

Once again, Kennedy will be the swing vote and will determine the outcome of both cases. Therein lies the problem. Kennedy is not a predictable Constitutionalist.

I honestly have no clue how the court will rule. I hope the entire crap of an “afforable” law is thrown out. But I don’t think it will be. It will have to be repealed via a Romney presidency.
I used to be dem, now an independent, and it scares me that the dems don’t seem to not have any problems forcing people to buy a private product, and forcing people into a govt run rationing system. I’ve traveled around the world, seen just how awful govt run healthcare systems are.

I really fear we are headed that way. I don’t follow the sup ct much, haven’t until this year, but I was stunned to hear how justices like Gingsburg and Kagan appear to be pretty outright leaning socialists. And wasn’t Kagan in the WH praising this law? so why is she voting on it? we know how her vote is going to go. I frankly don’t see them as smart one bit.

I hope if it is upheld, that Romeny and the repubs win all 3 things, because this awful piece of crap of a bill needs to be redesigned, there are some good things, but the rest of it is awful!

The silence is deafening and the suspense is building.

Hopefully the result will be one that employs common sense, a commodity not commonly found in DC.

If we are lucky and the current regime is replaced in November, less in the way of frivolous government interference could become the norm…

By my count, the last day the oxygen was “sucked out of America” was November 4, 2008, with a possible relapse on January 20, 2009. Perhaps it’s time for the Supremes to infuse some much needed resuscitation to a gasping American electorate. I look forward to a series of 5-4 and 6-3 decisions that will inspire a long overdue Constitutional Convention. In the end, it is the “people”, not any one or more of the individual branches of the government, that have “what to say” about what we as a nation are all about. That might be news to the main stream media, but they haven’t been about the “news” for longer than the “Voyager” missions have been on their way out of our solar system, and they left in 1977, and are just getting there.Maybe we are too!

    quiznilo in reply to suedoctor. | June 20, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Heh. You *do not* want a constitutional convention. There is nothing wrong with the constitution we have, it just needs to be adhered to.

[…] friends over at Legal Insurrection remind us in this essential and short post to “prepare for opinion-release-aggeddon” from the Supreme […]

Conservative Beaner | June 20, 2012 at 8:20 pm

Let slip the dogs of war and cry havoc

Subotai Bahadur | June 20, 2012 at 8:44 pm

Let us assume that one or both of the biggies; Arizona and Obamacare, go against Obama. Last week he apparently successfully asserted the right to ignore any law he wants to. Today, with his declaration of Executive Privilege, he asserted the right to ignore Congress’ oversight function. What basis is there to assume that he will obey a ruling from the Supreme Court that he disagrees with? And if he ignores them, what recourse is there? The Senate is held by the Democrats. There is not one Democrat there who would side with the Constitution over party.

Subotai Bahadur

Henry Hawkins | June 20, 2012 at 9:02 pm

I wonder if Obama worries about having boorishly called out the SC during a SOTU address. I sure hope the SC is equally petty and vindicative just this once.

Curious why you think the term won’t end on Monday? Haven’t seen anything on SCOTUSBlog about the term ending Thursday.

# I want to read Justice Thomas opinion first thing
# second I’d like to see who wrote the summary

That’s for both “Obamacare” but also for “Arizona” when it comes out.

My reason for that is my discovered enjoyment of Justice Thomas’s opinions but it also appears to me that he has been the author of the summary of many of the decisions in which he was on the majority.

On memory [and keeping in mind I’m a techie who barely scraped by Bus Law 101] I think he authored the “Citizens United” decision which drew so much fire and ire in the following “State of the Union”.

# There are non-trivial rumors that the administration is preparing to tear down the second amendment if they are re-elected.

# I adore the last ten pages of Judge Vinson’s decision in the district court case; I’m hoping at least some of that makes it’s way to at least one of the opinions [and hopefully the Decision].

# Again as someone who could barely spell “Supreme Court” in 2007, and whose parents and grandparents were too young to have known about “Helvering” – it has amazed me how our demonstrably super-genius Administration took Helvering as a paint-by-numbers template for Obamacare.

# To me it seems this administration is modeling itself on the FDR administration particularly 1933 through 1938, I’m just hoping enough voters………………

@Suedoctor: Really do beware the desire to have another constitutional convention. The one in 1787-88 was convened for one purpose and came out with another quite different result, but it that instance, quite a good result too.

However, the point is that there doesn’t seem to be any way to put a tether on such a convention except for voting to either ratify or deny that convention’s results. And, the procedure for voting on that convention’s results might be open to different interpretations, the last one defined its own ratification process but could a new one get away with doing that?

The point is that a new constitutional convention would not have a defined limit set upon its objectives, other than what the convention itself agreed to.

Such a new convention could open a likely nastiness unlike anything seen in this country since 1861, which would seem to be mild compared to the new event.

Cheers and hope for the best, especially for a change in the executive office. 🙂

Otherwise 🙁

Wouldn’t bother me if it is handed down on July 3,2012 at 4:59pm Eastern.

If SB1070 is upheld & Obamacare meets its maker that day and time, the left will be the fireworks displays best observed pausing only to pop popcorn during their collective inhales of air between the mass screams and coast-to-coast Liberal PTSD triggerings on a continental scale echoing across the globe in overheated political tsunamis.

Without a doubt, Team Obama has their play books for each case, each decision yea or ney, having already been passed out the the Liberal Media Complex.

Watch for the triggering of simultaneously timed explosions of the same exact talking points from every liberal television and radio news broadcasting company, on que.

They are nothing if not organized and Pavlovian to a fault.
Twitter will go into China Syndrome state triggering Political Defcon 1, regardless of time, date, decision/s.

Southern Union Company v. United States
Justice Sotomayor has opinion. The rule of Apprendi v. NJ applies to the imposition of criminal fines. The First Circuit is reversed. The vote is 6-3.
Justice Breyer dissents, joined by Kennedy and Alito.

Knox v. SEIU, 10-1121. Opinion by Alito.
The Ninth Circuit is reversed. Justice Sotomayor concurs in the judgment, joined by Ginsburg. It appears to be 7-2; Breyer dissented, joined by Kagan.
The Court rules that the case is not moot, first. It then rules on the merits: the union’s treatment of nonmembers who had opted out when they got notice of the dues ran afoul of the First Amendment.

I know it’s a side case – what’s the scoop on KNOX V SEIU?