Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

Déjà vu all over again?

November 9, 2018

Florida’s tax migrants may not be out of the woods yet … but they may be holding an ironic high card.


OK, let’s recap the the bidding…

On election day, FL Gov. Rick Scott (R) edged incumbent Senator Bill Nelson (D) by a razor thin margin.

Similarly, Congressman Ron DeSantis edged Socialist-Democrat Andrew Gillum for the Florida Governorship.

Gillum conceded the race to DeSantis.

Looked like Florida was safe as a tax sanctuary … at least for another 4 years.


Then the worm turned.

Let’s walk thru that … and, a predictable end-game that I haven’t heard from the pundits yet.


Advice to the Rowe v. Wade hyperventilators: chill out.

September 12, 2018

Judge Kavanaugh’s hearings were loaded with predictable content:

Dem senators used their air time to warn (again) that Rowe v. Wade would be repealed and abortions would be outlawed.


First, I doubt that a sweeping case will ever reach the SCOTUS. 

Pro-choicers — about half the country — are zealous to their cause.

The other half — pro-lifers — have largely accepted the world as it is … just nibbling at the margins against late-term and partial-birth abortions and tax-payer funding … not angling for “outlawing”.

Second, even in the very unlikely case that RvW were overturned, it wouldn’t eliminate access to abortions.



Here’s why…


Is Rowe vs. Wade a winning hand for Dems?

September 11, 2018

Resisting Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the SCOTUS, Dems are warning that Rowe vs, Wade will be repealed and abortions will become illegal.

Putting personal views aside, the strategy is a bit of a head-scratcher for me.

While the issue riles the base (I guess) and motivates protest marches by passionate pro-choice advocates, it’s not apparent to me that it’s a winning political issue.

It’s true — based on Pew data — that when given a binary choice between  overturning RvW or keeping it as is, about 2/3’s of respondents are against overturning.

That says it’s a winning issue, right?



But, the political case isn’t nearly so clear when drilling down on the numbers …


Correct awareness?

2 in 3 respondents identify RvW as something to do with abortion (chart above) … but of those who do, the vast majority believe (or are led to believe) that that repeal would, by definition outlaw all abortions.

Not the case, it would simply push abortion rights back down to the state-level. (More on that in a subsequent post).

According to Pew, less than half of respondents under 30 even associate RvW as relating to abortion.


And, that’s despite a similar lathering-up operation when Justice Gorsuch was under consideration.


Critical Issue?

Pew also finds that only 18% of the total population consider abortion rights to be a critical issue.

53% say that abortion is “not that important” of an issue.


And, of those who think that abortion rights are a critical issue, by a margin of 4 to 1, the preference is to overturn RvW.

In other words, most of the support for not over-tuning is among folks for whom the issue is not important.

So, politically speaking,  it’s not obvious to me, why the Dems would choose to showcase the issue …

Maybe it’s only important when it’s important … when folks are led to believe that the law will change and abortion will be outlawed.

More on that tomorrow.


Follow on Twitter @KenHoma

>> Latest Posts


Tonite: Trump’s SCOTUS pick

July 9, 2018

Regardless, the end of “legislating from the bench” … at least for a couple of decades

Tonight, President Trump will announce his nomination for the Supreme Court.

The left is understandably in panic mode … but, in my opinion, for the wrong reasons.

News reports say that Trump has narrowed the field to 4 candidates.


Here’s my rundown … and my grand conclusion…


Thank you, Senator Harry Reid

June 29, 2018

The perils of being “too cute by half”

Big week for the Supreme Court … leaves liberals in panic mode … and conservatives doing an end zone dance.


First, Trump’s travel ban (version 3.0) was ruled to be within the Presidential authority to secure the nation.

Then, a  ruling that merchants need not violate their religious beliefs to serve everybody.  (The Red Hen Restaurant should be happy about that).

And finally, a ruling that government employee unions can’t make employees cough up money that gets laundered through to the DNC to elect bosses.


So, what has that got to do with Harry Reid?


The irony of King vs. Burwell

March 5, 2015

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the latest  — and perhaps, the most significant challenge to ObamaCare.


In a nutshell, the essence of the case is whether the ObamaCare law provides for insurance subsidies to folks buying health insurance through the Federal Insurance Exchange.

The argument centers on very specific – and very literal wording in the law.

To “motivate” individual states to set up their own insurance exchanges, the law law says that subsidies would only be provided to people who buy their health insurance thru state exchanges.  No provision was made for subsidies thru the Federal exchange.

ObamaCare supporters are arguing that the wording was a “drafting error” and that the legislative intent was to provide subsidies regardless of whether the insurance was bought thru a state or Federal exchange.  That’s somewhere between revisionist history and boldface lie.

Failing that argument, the fallback line of reasoning is that bad things will happen ObamaCare if it’s implemented the way it’s written.

That may be true, but this is a legal issue not a social issue.

Conservatives argue that the intent was clear (to bully states into creating exchanges) and that the law needs to be interpreted as written, not based on what might have been intended.

Of course, Chief Justice Roberts violated the latter point when he let the law fly when the individual mandate was challenged — coining the penalty to be a tax.

I expect the Justices to find for the plaintiffs and against ObamaCare.

Here’s where the irony creeps in …


Did the Supreme Court help Obama or Romney ?

August 17, 2012

Pundits – all of whom mis-predicted the Supreme Court decision – were largely split re: whether the decision would boost Obama’s or Romney’s Presidential chances.

Well, based on this week’s NYT-CBS poll, the SCOTUS decision was a boost for Romney:

28% said they were more likely to vote for Romney … only 13% said that they were more likely to vote for Obama … that’s more than 2 to 1.

Fair to say that the SCOTUS decision was a force boosting Romney into a dead heat in the election poll.



* * * * *

SCOTUS & Politics

From the same poll, a majority felt that  the SCOTUS decision was based on personal or political views rather than the law.

That can’t be good …


>> Latest Posts

Flashback: Obama disses the Supreme Court justices …

March 29, 2012

Remember the 2010 State of the Union address when Pres. Obama took the unprecedented step of criticizing the Supreme Court while they were sitting in the audience as distinguished guests?

click to view

Do you think Obama would like  to have that shot back now that the fate of ObamaCare is in the Justices’ hands?

>> Latest Posts

Grand turnabout: Spit in the Supreme Court’s eye and then …

March 25, 2010

Here’s one to watch …

In his State of the Union address, Obama broke protocol and directly admonished the attending members of the Supreme Court for a recent decision that disappointed him.

Now, several states — 38 at last count, led by Virginia and Idaho — are prepping constitutional appeals to ObamaCare.  One track: claiming that the so-called individual mandates — that impose tax-fines on healthy citizens who opt to go uninsured — is unconstitutional.

I know that judges are supposed to rule strictly on the basis of law and proven evidence.  But, in the final analysis, they’re people — with feelings, emotions, and biases.

We’ll see how they rule when ObamaCare is raised to their level.

The President may rue the night he chose to publicly embarrass them …