Posted on 01/14/2014 1:17:18 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
I’d like to see the broader ruling, but I’ll be delighted with the narrow ruling. I really don’t trust the SCOTUS as I cannot fathom a Constitutional thread of their decisions, at least not one that is consistent. The only one who seems consistent is Thomas. I wish we had five more like him.
What’s your rulings scorecard? I mean how many times have you called it wrong? I hate to get my hopes up. ;-]
I’d read that, but didn’t put it together. Thanks for clarifying it. I enjoy your posts and feel free to ping me to any good legal discussions. Take care.
SCOTUS has historically held that the Senate and House have the power to establish and enforce the rules of their respective chambers. So if the Senate considered itself “in session,” I suspect the Court will defer to the Senate’s rules and procedures on the question of whether or not the Senate was in recess.
That being said, I predict that the Court will rule narrowly here and find only that the three 2012 NLRB appointments were unconstitutional because Noel Canning’s claim that the NLRB ruling against it is invalid is predicated on the argument that three of the five NLRB members were unconstitutionally appointed. I don’t believe Noel Canning is asking the Court to rule on any other unconstitutional appointments.
Who knows what SCOTUS will actually do. Lately their rulings have made for very strange bedfellows indeed. When Scalia and Thomas are on opposing sides and Sotomayor sides with Scalia, it becomes impossible for a novice like me to venture an educated guess.
That’s exactly what I’m feeling. I cannot get a handle on any discernible judicial philosophy. Scalia is inscrutable so often that I sometimes think he’s ditzy. I don’t read a lot of strict constructionism or originalism in their rulings, other than Thomas who seems pretty consistent. Their long game is either very long or they don’t have a long game and it’s Hail-Mary passes all the way.
‘In the European Union, for example, a corporation may generally be sued in the nation in which it is “domiciled,” a term defined to refer only to the location of the corporation’s “statutory seat,” “central administration,” or “principal place of business.”’
LOL!
That’s our Ginsburg... always looking to anything but the Constitution of The United States of America.
Oh well, worked out this time.
The reliance on foreign law actually makes sense here, which is why Scalia, who has condemned reliance on foreign law, joined the opinion (as did all of the court's conservatives).
The actual text of the Constitution doesn't help much here-- it says that a defendant in a lawsuit is entitled to "due process," i.e. to fairness, but doesn't get more specific than that. It is logical to say that it is not "fair" for a foreign corporation to get dragged into U.S. courts on a theory that foreign courts would never apply to U.S. corporations.
In context it was so superfluous and inept it actually did make me laugh. Like it was a rote or formulaic act by her.
BTW it was a relief that she didn’t look to the middle-east for her international example of ‘fairness’! Or China, Nigeria...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.