Senior U.S. District Judge ruled that a man gets his money back that was wrongfully seized by the government and reminds the government of its duty of candor. [RJ]
At least a couple of things have gone right for North Las Vegas lately. [RJ; Las Vegas Sun]
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in King v. Burwell upholding subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. You can find the opinion and in-depth coverage at SCOTUSblog.
8:12 Here. Independent with an originalist bent. I expect more than result oriented decisions from the highest court in the land. Stare decisis is worthless if the the result is preordained based on whether the justices like/dislike the law being questioned. Save application of law based on personality to the minor leagues, not the SCOTUS.
King is intellectually dishonest? You mean like Bush v. Gore? The only difference is that King preserved health coverage for millions of people while B v. G gave us eight years of Dubya. I'll take the former.
I love it. People can't admit that they are Republicans anymore because Republican leadership in Washington is so backward. Now they are all "independent." The decision in King was not results oriented. The petitioners were asking that a law be interpreted in the exact opposite manner than how it was written and passed (4 words do not overcome the hundreds of other pages of text). Congress does not hide elephants in mouse holes. Furthermore, even if the Court didn't decide based on the reasoning in the opinion, it would have reached the same result because the law would not give appropriate notice to the states that refraining from maintaining a state exchange would result in denying the citizens of that state subsidies. The only people who should be disappointed in the ruling are those who wanted to see insurance marketplaces struggle.
Oh, 9:45, I do hate the insurance industry! Until you wrote the last line, I didn't care about the outcome at all! You have ruined my day.
Guest
Anonymous
June 25, 2015 4:20 pm
This is how Scalia's dissent ends:
But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State”means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takesto uphold and assist its favorites.
He has a bit of a point, but in the big picture, an opposite result in King wouldn't have helped anyone except those trying to undermine Obama. Do the states that didn't set up exchanges really want to answer to their voters that are losing insurance subsidies? And compare this map: (http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-lawsuit/) with this map: (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president) (indicating high correlation between being a red state and not setting up a state exchange).
Yeah, Scalia should shut his pie hole considering he signed onto Bush v. Gore — an opinion which was "limited to the present circumstances"! Talk about outcome-determinative analysis! He has no cred complaining about it now.
At 9:20. Everyone else is right about the dire consequences on the insurance marketplace, but that does not and should not matter to the legal analysis. Judges are not legislators. If the legislature screws up a law, it is their own fault and THEY must fix it or face the consequences. The Court is not supposed to step in as the "shadow legislature" to rewrite it.
The problem recognized by Scalia is that King guts the foundational axiom of Plain Meaning. The SCOTUS has just caused years of headache for every lower court. The SCOTUS will have to spend years trying to reestablish Plain Meaning, and drawing distinctions from King. Simply put, its bad case law.
So, basically, the 16 states that accepted at face value that they needed to spend the money to create their own exchange so that their citizens can get tax credits were sold a false bill of goods. Seriously. The Act intended to use the credits to convince the states into creating the exchanges, so that the "cost" of the ACA could be underreported. That didn't happen. But the fact that it didn't happen does not magically change the clear and unambiguous language into ambiguous language, subject to results-oriented analysis. It's piss-poor case law. SCOTUS has utterly forgotten that one of its primary roles is to provide guidance to lower courts. They haven't provided clear guidance in who knows how long.
Scalia can't get out of his own way with his histrionic dissents. They usually state something like "today the majority wrongly holds XYZ, which essentially means [end of days], and [parade of horribles]". In fact, the majority has rarely gone as far as Scalia suggests, but his dissents allow enterprising attorneys to go into court and say, "this case stands for XYZ, and even Scalia agrees with me." In that sense I think Scalia places himself above his causes.
That's what it looks like. And what is going on in the LSC bankruptcy? Any progress there? We should have a permanent top of the page topic solely dealing with LSC and GS updates.
Now I see G&S's problem – according to the filing, they have $9,325,212.31 in A/R as of the close of 2014.
Here is the filing – Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment on an Order Shortening Time. 252 pages long. http://bit.ly/1GMa2Kj
Guest
Anonymous
June 25, 2015 8:47 pm
No discussion of Superlawyers Mountain States list? Or are we tired of the subject?
King is an intellectually dishonest opinion.
You are.
8:12 clearly voted for Obama.
8:12 Here. Independent with an originalist bent. I expect more than result oriented decisions from the highest court in the land. Stare decisis is worthless if the the result is preordained based on whether the justices like/dislike the law being questioned. Save application of law based on personality to the minor leagues, not the SCOTUS.
King is intellectually dishonest? You mean like Bush v. Gore? The only difference is that King preserved health coverage for millions of people while B v. G gave us eight years of Dubya. I'll take the former.
I love it. People can't admit that they are Republicans anymore because Republican leadership in Washington is so backward. Now they are all "independent." The decision in King was not results oriented. The petitioners were asking that a law be interpreted in the exact opposite manner than how it was written and passed (4 words do not overcome the hundreds of other pages of text). Congress does not hide elephants in mouse holes. Furthermore, even if the Court didn't decide based on the reasoning in the opinion, it would have reached the same result because the law would not give appropriate notice to the states that refraining from maintaining a state exchange would result in denying the citizens of that state subsidies. The only people who should be disappointed in the ruling are those who wanted to see insurance marketplaces struggle.
Oh, 9:45, I do hate the insurance industry! Until you wrote the last line, I didn't care about the outcome at all! You have ruined my day.
This is how Scalia's dissent ends:
But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State”means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takesto uphold and assist its favorites.
He has a bit of a point, but in the big picture, an opposite result in King wouldn't have helped anyone except those trying to undermine Obama. Do the states that didn't set up exchanges really want to answer to their voters that are losing insurance subsidies? And compare this map: (http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-lawsuit/) with this map: (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president) (indicating high correlation between being a red state and not setting up a state exchange).
After Bush v. Gore, Scalia should shut the hell us about the Supreme Court doing "whatever to takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
I'm not sure if it's always been this way, but I think every member of the current U.S. Supreme Court could be justifiably accused of this.
Yeah, Scalia should shut his pie hole considering he signed onto Bush v. Gore — an opinion which was "limited to the present circumstances"! Talk about outcome-determinative analysis! He has no cred complaining about it now.
At 9:20. Everyone else is right about the dire consequences on the insurance marketplace, but that does not and should not matter to the legal analysis. Judges are not legislators. If the legislature screws up a law, it is their own fault and THEY must fix it or face the consequences. The Court is not supposed to step in as the "shadow legislature" to rewrite it.
The problem recognized by Scalia is that King guts the foundational axiom of Plain Meaning. The SCOTUS has just caused years of headache for every lower court. The SCOTUS will have to spend years trying to reestablish Plain Meaning, and drawing distinctions from King. Simply put, its bad case law.
So, basically, the 16 states that accepted at face value that they needed to spend the money to create their own exchange so that their citizens can get tax credits were sold a false bill of goods. Seriously. The Act intended to use the credits to convince the states into creating the exchanges, so that the "cost" of the ACA could be underreported. That didn't happen. But the fact that it didn't happen does not magically change the clear and unambiguous language into ambiguous language, subject to results-oriented analysis. It's piss-poor case law. SCOTUS has utterly forgotten that one of its primary roles is to provide guidance to lower courts. They haven't provided clear guidance in who knows how long.
Scalia can't get out of his own way with his histrionic dissents. They usually state something like "today the majority wrongly holds XYZ, which essentially means [end of days], and [parade of horribles]". In fact, the majority has rarely gone as far as Scalia suggests, but his dissents allow enterprising attorneys to go into court and say, "this case stands for XYZ, and even Scalia agrees with me." In that sense I think Scalia places himself above his causes.
Wow. Just wow.
Bush v. Gore was a 7-2 decision on the constitutional question. It was only 5-4 on the appropriate remedy in that particular case.
Hey, lets not ruin a good story.
That is some filing in the Gordon Silver matter – I guess that BK is the next step?
That's what it looks like. And what is going on in the LSC bankruptcy? Any progress there? We should have a permanent top of the page topic solely dealing with LSC and GS updates.
Can anyone post the filings?
Now I see G&S's problem – according to the filing, they have $9,325,212.31 in A/R as of the close of 2014.
Here is the filing – Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment on an Order Shortening Time. 252 pages long. http://bit.ly/1GMa2Kj
No discussion of Superlawyers Mountain States list? Or are we tired of the subject?
You have to pay to get on that list
I've been on that list for eight years, and I've never paid. You have to pay for that stupid Top 40 Under 40.
Remember this guy?
http://gibsontreu.com/attorneys/steven-a-gibson-esq/
bluetooth guy?
His website bio reminds of this guy – http://goo.gl/nUlGhU
One in the samr
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jun/26/cosby-lawyer-unsealing-court-docs-terribly-embarra/