The Health Care Ruling is a Big win for....

...the Supreme Court. 

The Chief Justice, by joining the left and upholding the law, saved the Supreme Court from being looked at as only a political body.  If it would have struck down the ACA on political 5-4 voting lines, it would have been Bush v. Gore all over again (which was the Rehnquist Court, not the Roberts Court), and the Court would have been delegitimized.  But now, even though Republicans and Democrats will fight over this in the upcoming elections, the Court will be seen as more neutral than in the past.

"It's our Super Bowl."

That's how Tom Goldstein describes today on the live blog over at SCOTUSBlog, which is worth headed to right now. 

I'm actually very excited to see what the Court does on the lying about a military honor case...

I'll hopefully post something this afternoon with some discussion about the cases today.

UPDATE -- the reason you should have been at SCOTUSBlog instead of CNN is that CNN reported "Individual Mandate Struck Down" for about 6 minutes before realizing its mistake.  So bad.  Goldstein, Howe & Company got it right from the get go.  Bloggers are better than MSM....

UPDATE 2 -- Here's the lengthy healthcare opinion.

P.S. Valor Act struck down...

Judge Robin Rosenbaum confirmed!

92-3 by the Senate. Well done and congratulations!

Update-- to answer the questions in the comments, per Glenn Sugameli, the only No votes (GOP Sens. Lee [UT], DeMint [SC] and Paul [KY]) were from those who have been continuing to vote NO on all judicial nominees in protest of three President Obama Executive branch nominees

11th Circuit decides whether the "act of masturbating while sitting beside another person ... satisf[ies] the 'with another person' requirement of the statute."

It does not.  The Federal Public Defender's office deserves a hand for this win.

The facts of USA v. Randolph Scott:

In a one-count information, the government charged Scott with “knowingly
attempt[ing] to commit an unnatural and lascivious act with another person, that is,
masturbating while attempting to touch another person . . . .” Scott pleaded not
guilty and the parties consented to a bench trial before a magistrate judge. At trial,
the government called Lauren Wyscaver as its only witness. She testified that she
was sitting in a chair in the waiting room of Miami Veterans Affairs Hospital
when Scott approached her and asked if he could sit in the chair next to her. She
agreed, and the two began talking about their respective military service, why they
were at the hospital, and the weather. There were four or five other people in the
waiting room, which had approximately 20 chairs.
According to Wyscaver, within the first few minutes of their conversation,
Scott “tried to touch [her] ankle, but [she] pulled away.” Wyscaver became
uncomfortable and started to ignore Scott, but he continued talking to her. Scott
told Wyscaver that he thought she was pretty and offered to pay her to give him
her phone number. Wyscaver testified that Scott then, as “nonchalantly as you can
do it,” reached down into his pants and started masturbating. “Once he did that,”
she said, “I sat up and I walked into the nurse’s triage room because I was
frightened.” Wyscaver eventually reported Scott’s conduct to a security guard.
Based on that evidence, the magistrate judge concluded that Scott had
attempted to “masturbat[e] or fondl[e] himself with another person who is”
Wyscaver. For that reason, the magistrate judge ruled that Scott had violated the
Assimilative Crimes Act by attempting to commit an “unnatural and lascivious act
with another person” in violation of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 800.02. The magistrate
judge sentenced Scott to 68 days in prison, followed by one year of probation.
The district court affirmed his conviction and sentence, and Scott now appeals
only his conviction.

So what did the court decide:

The government argues that Scott was masturbating “with” Wyscaver
because “he was sexually attracted to her” and because he stared at her while
masturbating. But the “with another person” element of section 800.02 is not
satisfied simply because a defendant is sexually aroused or erotically inspired by
another person. If mere arousal or inspiration were enough, Conforti would have
come out the other way. Nor does the fact that a defendant stares at another
person while committing an act mean that the defendant committed that act with
another person.
Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there is
insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Scott “knowingly attempt[ed]
to commit an unnatural and lascivious act with another person, that is,
masturbating while attempting to touch another person,” which is what the
information alleged. A reasonable factfinder could not have found that Scott was
masturbating “with another person” within the meaning of section 800.02.

Well, there you go -- staring at another person doesn't mean you committed an act with that person.

Putting aside all of the funny one-liners, can someone please explain to me why the feds brought this case in the first place, which is unlike the ICE chief, Anthony V. Mangione who is apparently set to plead guilty.

On a separate note -- GOOD LUCK TO ROBIN ROSENBAUM TODAY.

Where will you be this morning?

At the Heat Parade?

Or at ScotusBlog live blogging the Supreme Court opinions as they come out?

Should be a very exciting Monday morning.

If you are bored waiting for either, here's a good piece about Scalia's dissents.  Some highlights:

Morrison v. Olson (1988): The Court voted to uphold the Independent Counsel Act; Scalia was the only dissenter.

Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (2001): A lawsuit brought by the disabled golfer Casey Martin, who wanted to be allowed to ride in a golf cart between shots, something that the P.G.A. prohibited at the time. The Court ruled in Martin’s favor.

If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf—and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point—then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf.

And here's a picture of the police in front of the federal courthouse this morning:

 I feel much safer!