Blog

You know, one of the most troubling aspects of my trip to London–other than living under the specter of a Monarchy–was the omnipresent surveillance. One may call it omniveillance. I was roughly familiar with the pervasiveness of the CCTV cameras throughout London (I think Kagan or Breyer said something about London during oral argument in United States v. Jones), but until you see it, and experience, you can’t really understand how creepy it is. The cameras are EVERYWHERE. When I got into a (ridiculously overpriced) taxi from Heathrow Airport to my hotel, there was a frickin camera in the cab. Holy crap. When I took a bus the next morning (there was a free 24 hour shuttle to and from my hotel that no one told me about, yes I was pissed) there was a camera on the bus. I randomly looked up at a screen on the bus and saw myself. In downtown London it is worse. There are cameras everywhere. And the Brits don’t seem to care at all. Almost every sign is accompanied by something that begins “For your safety and security…” I guess that covers just about any infringement on individual liberty, no?

Here are some photos I took of the surveillance. My way of watching the watchmen I suppose. Though, funny aside. I went to Kings Crossing Train Station to get a pic of Platform 9 and 3/4 (from Harry Potter). I’m not kidding you. Some guard yelled at me for recording video in the train station. Oh sweet irony.

For the past 9 days, I have been basking in the glow of NFIB v. Sebelius. Fortunately, this is one of the few ways I can work on my tan without getting taxed. Lost amidst the enormous scope of the Affordable Care Act is the Snooki Tax. Yes, lest we forget that in addition to such key provisions as the individual mandate, community rating, gauranteed issue, and the Medicaid expansion was–gasp–a tax on tanning. Such an infringement of individual liberty knows no place in our republic. Alas, by upholding the Affordable Care Act, the Snooki Tax remains.

But, this travesty did not escape the attention of the joint-dissent.

The Act raises billions of dollars in taxes and fees, includ- ing exactions imposed on high-income taxpayers, see ACA §§9015, 10906; HCERA §1402, medical devices, see 26 U. S. C. §4191 (2006 ed., Supp. IV), and tanning booths, see §5000B.

The dissenters labelled this exaction among “the act’s minor provisions.”

Let the world always and forever remember that Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito would have ridden this world of the Snooki tax. Justice Alito, who hails from Trenton, likely has a special affinity for this shore pastime. And seriously, Justice Kennedy is a tad pale.

There is always the bill to repeal the Snooki Tax. Sponsored by the Representative from my home, Staten Island.

 

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

I had this sinking feeling when I passed by Buckingham Palace, or the other signs celebrating the Queen’s Jubilee. I understand Queen Elizabeth II is widely liked, and really does no harm. Though, the idea of a certain family that assumes power and huge amounts of wealth simply because they are in a certain bloodline troubles. I mean, it’s not like anyone in America inherited great amounts of wealth and power based on his or her parents. Right?

Instant Analysis: NFIB v. Sebelius

This may be the longest I have ever waited for a Supreme Court opinion. I mean that in two senses. One, the buildup since March 28 for this case has been quite unreal. Second, I waited 9 hours after the case was released to get it (I was flying to London and took off as the opinion was being announced, but before I could get the PDF). Without further ado.

First, let me break down the portions of the opinion.

(more…)

Conservative jurists, for years, have grounded their philosophies in some type of formalism–textualism, originalism, etc. Liberal jurists, for years, have grounded their philosophies in flexible, real-world based, pragmatism of various degrees. When conservative jurists get to the Supreme Court, they may quickly learn a lesson, such as the one that the Chief learned. Judicial ideologies, not keyed to any formalist decision-making process, must give way in certain important cases. Confronted with such a decision, conservative jurists are not familiar with how to proceed, and get “wobbly.” Liberal jurists are quite comfortable in the “there is no spoon” and know how to resolutely proceed with flexibility.

Maybe. Just a thought.