[EL] Justice Kennedy on assumptions

Wed Mar 25 09:14:31 PDT 2015

My apologies, the general subject certainly seemed relevant given the past
discussions over whether the Court should incorporate into their
decisionmaking process Congress' ability/willingness to act in response to
their rulings. Wasn't trying to be sarcastic, just mildly funny. Chalk that
one up as a fail. 

Best,

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:11 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Justice Kennedy on assumptions

I'm receiving a lot of private messages about the level of sarcasm and the
relevance of this thread for the election law list.  Everyone should keep
this in mind before posting.
Thanks.

On 3/25/15 8:30 AM, Sean Parnell wrote:

Well, I'd agree Kennedy didn't "suggest" how he will rule, but I think it's
fair to say he's also not feeling the need to play his part to the hologram
of Princess Pelosi urging him to "Help me, Obi Wan Kennedy, you're our only
hope to save us from our legislative incompetence."

Sorry, couldn't help that. But it was that allusion or Ordell Robbie's
comment about assumptions, and the Star Wars route seemed the better choice.

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: Eric J Segall [mailto:esegall at gsu.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:24 AM
To: Josh Blackman
Cc: Sean Parnell; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Justice Kennedy on assumptions

I agree with Josh, though Mark Stern disagrees:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/23/justice_kennedy_did_not_ju
st_suggest_he_will_rule_against_obamacare.html

Best,

Eric

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:17 AM, "Josh Blackman" <joshblackman at gmail.com>
wrote:

I think these comments do bear on King v. Burwell. Rick linked
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71211>  to my post
<http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/03/23/justice-kennedy-discusses-gridlock-
during-hill-testimony-yes-there-is-a-king-v-burwell-connection/>  the other
day, breaking down the exchange in King v. Burwell that Justice Kennedy may
have been referring to. I don't think this bodes well for the government. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Josh Blackman

http://JoshBlackman.com

Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610393287/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=17
89&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1610393287&linkCode=as2&tag=joshblaccom-20> 

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Sean Parnell
<sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:

The Wall Street Journal prints today an excerpt
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-anthony-kennedy-1427238816>
from Justice Kennedy's recent testimony to Congress that seems to have some
relevance to arguments I've see here regarding the VRA and King v. Burwell.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, testifying before a House committee
on the court's budget, among other matters, on March 23: 

It is not novel or new for justices to be concerned that they are making so
many decisions that affect a democracy. And we think a responsible,
efficient, responsive legislative and executive branch in the political
system will alleviate some of that pressure. We routinely decide cases
involving federal statutes, and we say, "Well, if this is wrong, the
Congress will fix it." But then we hear that Congress can't pass the bill
one way or the other, that there's gridlock. And some people say, "Well that
should affect the way we interpret the statutes." That seems to me a wrong
proposition. We have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches
of the government, that are committed to proceed in good faith and with good
will toward one another to resolve the problems of this republic.

Best,

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150325/1a2522d9/attachment.html>