A Supreme test of your partisan loyalty: A tale of two court cases

[MumblesBadly]

Ran across this news story that focused on how Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Trump’s two appointments to the Supreme Court, aren’t always on the same side of rulings with each other despite being conservatives.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2-o...at-odds-report

In one case, Yamaka Nation versus Washington State, Gorsuch sided with the liberal justices in ruling that the Yakama Nation sales of motor fuel were not subject to state sales taxes because of a 1855 treaty that included the right “to move goods to market freely“, while Kavanaugh sided the other way.

In another case, Maritime workers versus makers of pumps, valves, blowers, Kavanaugh sided with the liberal justices in ruling that the flow device manufacturers were civilly liable for failing to inform of the risk of asbestos exposure from insulation that was required for those pumps even though the manufacturers sold them to the Nacy without any asbestos insulation applied to them nor sold the asbestos used to insulate them.

Check out the story and post who you agree with on these cases and why. It would be interesting to see how self-identified conservatives and (American-style) liberals here come down on these issues.

[rum dick]

Without reading the cases (because I don't have an hour to kill), I will say this - Gorsuch is a stickler for the actual wording of the statute or contract at issue which is respectable. Meanwhile Kavanaugh just crafts legal opinions that suit his fancy regardless of what words, facts or logic dictate.

[rum dick]

Speaking of SCOTUS can we talk about how Chief Justice Roberts has basically decided to become the new swing vote in order to save the institution's legitimacy.

[blake]

no we will not be having that discussion

[Dan Druff]

Ran across this news story that focused on how Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Trump’s two appointments to the Supreme Court, aren’t always on the same side of rulings with each other despite being conservatives.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2-o...at-odds-report

In one case, Yamaka Nation versus Washington State, Gorsuch sided with the liberal justices in ruling that the Yakama Nation sales of motor fuel were not subject to state sales taxes because of a 1855 treaty that included the right “to move goods to market freely“, while Kavanaugh sided the other way.

In another case, Maritime workers versus makers of pumps, valves, blowers, Kavanaugh sided with the liberal justices in ruling that the flow device manufacturers were civilly liable for failing to inform of the risk of asbestos exposure from insulation that was required for those pumps even though the manufacturers sold them to the Nacy without any asbestos insulation applied to them nor sold the asbestos used to insulate them.

Check out the story and post who you agree with on these cases and why. It would be interesting to see how self-identified conservatives and (American-style) liberals here come down on these issues.

Without reading the fine details of the case, I would be on Kavanaugh's side on the sales tax thing, as much has changed in the world since 1855 when the treaty was made, and a lack of requirement to remit sales tax would give Yakama Nation a huge competitive edge in the marketplace. Cars did not exist in 1855 when the treaty was made.

I also agree with Kavanaugh on the asbestos insulation issue. If asbestos was required for the pumps to work, then the health warnings should still be their responsibility, even if they aren't directly selling the asbestos the to customer. I would feel differently if the asbestos were an option thing that could be used in order to make the product perform better, but as a required material to make the pump operate at all, the company should be required to furnish the usual asbestos warnings.

So there you go. I'm 2/2 with Kavanaugh.

[MumblesBadly]

Ran across this news story that focused on how Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Trump’s two appointments to the Supreme Court, aren’t always on the same side of rulings with each other despite being conservatives.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2-o...at-odds-report

In one case, Yamaka Nation versus Washington State, Gorsuch sided with the liberal justices in ruling that the Yakama Nation sales of motor fuel were not subject to state sales taxes because of a 1855 treaty that included the right “to move goods to market freely“, while Kavanaugh sided the other way.

In another case, Maritime workers versus makers of pumps, valves, blowers, Kavanaugh sided with the liberal justices in ruling that the flow device manufacturers were civilly liable for failing to inform of the risk of asbestos exposure from insulation that was required for those pumps even though the manufacturers sold them to the Nacy without any asbestos insulation applied to them nor sold the asbestos used to insulate them.

Check out the story and post who you agree with on these cases and why. It would be interesting to see how self-identified conservatives and (American-style) liberals here come down on these issues.

Without reading the fine details of the case, I would be on Kavanaugh's side on the sales tax thing, as much has changed in the world since 1855 when the treaty was made, and a lack of requirement to remit sales tax would give Yakama Nation a huge competitive edge in the marketplace. Cars did not exist in 1855 when the treaty was made.

I also agree with Kavanaugh on the asbestos insulation issue. If asbestos was required for the pumps to work, then the health warnings should still be their responsibility, even if they aren't directly selling the asbestos the to customer. I would feel differently if the asbestos were an option thing that could be used in order to make the product perform better, but as a required material to make the pump operate at all, the company should be required to furnish the usual asbestos warnings.

So there you go. I'm 2/2 with Kavanaugh.

Insulation wasn’t required for the equipment to work, but for people to work around them. Also, it was possible that the equipment in question could have been insulated with other material but insulation containing asbestos was likely the cheapest available at that time that would satisfy fireproof standards. Does this change your answer for #2?

[Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe]

didn't read article or anything in this thread

[Dan Druff]

Without reading the fine details of the case, I would be on Kavanaugh's side on the sales tax thing, as much has changed in the world since 1855 when the treaty was made, and a lack of requirement to remit sales tax would give Yakama Nation a huge competitive edge in the marketplace. Cars did not exist in 1855 when the treaty was made.

I also agree with Kavanaugh on the asbestos insulation issue. If asbestos was required for the pumps to work, then the health warnings should still be their responsibility, even if they aren't directly selling the asbestos the to customer. I would feel differently if the asbestos were an option thing that could be used in order to make the product perform better, but as a required material to make the pump operate at all, the company should be required to furnish the usual asbestos warnings.

So there you go. I'm 2/2 with Kavanaugh.

Insulation wasn’t required for the equipment to work, but for people to work around them. Also, it was possible that the equipment in question could have been insulated with other material but insulation containing asbestos was likely the cheapest available at that time that would satisfy fireproof standards. Does this change your answer for #2?

Yes, then my answer would change.

Unless the other option for insulation is prohibitively expensive.

[MumblesBadly]

Insulation wasn’t required for the equipment to work, but for people to work around them. Also, it was possible that the equipment in question could have been insulated with other material but insulation containing asbestos was likely the cheapest available at that time that would satisfy fireproof standards. Does this change your answer for #2?

Yes, then my answer would change.

Unless the other option for insulation is prohibitively expensive.

My understanding of this case is one of a defendant with deep pockets being one of the many subcontracting parties named as responsible for failure to inform workers about asbestos toxicity even though their business did not touch asbestos (because it was possible to use their products in other settings that did not require insulation) and that the main contractor/shipbuilding subbed out the supplies, such as those flow control devices, to these other companies. But because the shipbuilder went belly up or had limited recoverable resources for asbestos lawsuit claimants to collect damages from, subcontractors like those flow control device manufacturers were also parties named in the lawsuit as also-responsible parties.

How does that perspective affect your position on the matter?

[Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe]

Yes, then my answer would change.

Unless the other option for insulation is prohibitively expensive.

My understanding of this case is one of a defendant with deep pockets being one of the many subcontracting parties named as responsible for failure to inform workers about asbestos toxicity even though their business did not touch asbestos (because it was possible to use their products in other settings that did not require insulation) and that the main contractor/shipbuilding subbed out the supplies, such as those flow control devices, to these other companies. But because the shipbuilder went belly up or had limited recoverable resources for asbestos lawsuit claimants to collect damages from, subcontractors like those flow control device manufacturers were also parties named in the lawsuit as also-responsible parties.

How does that perspective affect your position on the matter?

[ftpjesus]

Ran across this news story that focused on how Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Trump’s two appointments to the Supreme Court, aren’t always on the same side of rulings with each other despite being conservatives.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2-o...at-odds-report

In one case, Yamaka Nation versus Washington State, Gorsuch sided with the liberal justices in ruling that the Yakama Nation sales of motor fuel were not subject to state sales taxes because of a 1855 treaty that included the right “to move goods to market freely“, while Kavanaugh sided the other way.

In another case, Maritime workers versus makers of pumps, valves, blowers, Kavanaugh sided with the liberal justices in ruling that the flow device manufacturers were civilly liable for failing to inform of the risk of asbestos exposure from insulation that was required for those pumps even though the manufacturers sold them to the Nacy without any asbestos insulation applied to them nor sold the asbestos used to insulate them.

Check out the story and post who you agree with on these cases and why. It would be interesting to see how self-identified conservatives and (American-style) liberals here come down on these issues.

Strangely enough I tend to lean more to Gorsuch on both cases.. Indian treaties generally have been federal issues and as such exemption from state tax regulation has been common place across this country for well over a century.. Why do you think folks who can buy cigs and such on the rez if they can because several Ive been to are indeed exempt from State tax requirements.. They are viewed as extra-state usually meaning their dealings are generally with the Feds except when it comes to the issues of casinos and such and even then as weve seen the limitiations allowed to be placed on them is pretty limited.. Ask AZ how that all worked out over the Desert Diamond Casino built by the small Tohono Odom Tribe out near Glendale AZ. State tried repeatedly to stop it with the blessing and some underhanded funding by the Salt River Pima Indians (who run Casino Arizona and Talking Stick) and the Gila River Tribe (which run Wild Horse Pass, VeeQuiva and Lone Butte Casinos ) here in the Valley (theres also the old Ft McDowell tribe which has a casino in the foothills outskirts area of Maricopa County but they couldve cared less it didnt affect them) in fact it was the GRI who were all bent out of shape as DD was a direct competition with them for visitors on the West Valley side cutting into VeeQuiva Which the GRI had just completely rebuilt only a few years ago and Lone Butte (Wild Horse Pass is East Valley side near I10/US60/AZ202 main interchange in Chandler AZ)... As for the Asbestos issue thats been a thorny subject for years but I have to wonder why the manufacturer of a metal hardware for pipefitting would have any liability regarding insulation material.. Yes while they may have suggested it they did not make any such insulation for the device that falls back on the makers of the insulation.. By logic conclusion the piping hardware maker had and would have no reason to know or suspect that asbestos was an issue they didnt make the insulation.. Heres why I say that.. By the ruling Pandoras box would open to leave even car makers on the hook as cars used asbestos in their brake pads for decades and in fact in some cases it can still be found in them.. EPA limits are 1pct of a product.. Just an interesting article that tells you what to this day sitll can and may have asbestos in it.. https://www.maacenter.org/asbestos/products/ The point is you cant unring the bell and you cant go blaming folks for things that werent known then.. Obviously NOW things are different but indeed when as Druff said other insulation is available and I dont believe the cost issue is a major concern (especially when we are talking about Uncle Sam for bloody sake)

[MumblesBadly]

Ran across this news story that focused on how Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Trump’s two appointments to the Supreme Court, aren’t always on the same side of rulings with each other despite being conservatives.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2-o...at-odds-report

In one case, Yamaka Nation versus Washington State, Gorsuch sided with the liberal justices in ruling that the Yakama Nation sales of motor fuel were not subject to state sales taxes because of a 1855 treaty that included the right “to move goods to market freely“, while Kavanaugh sided the other way.

In another case, Maritime workers versus makers of pumps, valves, blowers, Kavanaugh sided with the liberal justices in ruling that the flow device manufacturers were civilly liable for failing to inform of the risk of asbestos exposure from insulation that was required for those pumps even though the manufacturers sold them to the Nacy without any asbestos insulation applied to them nor sold the asbestos used to insulate them.

Check out the story and post who you agree with on these cases and why. It would be interesting to see how self-identified conservatives and (American-style) liberals here come down on these issues.

Strangely enough I tend to lean more to Gorsuch on both cases.. Indian treaties generally have been federal issues and as such exemption from state tax regulation has been common place across this country for well over a century.. Why do you think folks who can buy cigs and such on the rez if they can because several Ive been to are indeed exempt from State tax requirements.. They are viewed as extra-state usually meaning their dealings are generally with the Feds except when it comes to the issues of casinos and such and even then as weve seen the limitiations allowed to be placed on them is pretty limited.. Ask AZ how that all worked out over the Desert Diamond Casino built by the small Tohono Odom Tribe out near Glendale AZ. State tried repeatedly to stop it with the blessing and some underhanded funding by the Salt River Pima Indians (who run Casino Arizona and Talking Stick) and the Gila River Tribe (which run Wild Horse Pass, VeeQuiva and Lone Butte Casinos ) here in the Valley (theres also the old Ft McDowell tribe which has a casino in the foothills outskirts area of Maricopa County but they couldve cared less it didnt affect them) in fact it was the GRI who were all bent out of shape as DD was a direct competition with them for visitors on the West Valley side cutting into VeeQuiva Which the GRI had just completely rebuilt only a few years ago and Lone Butte (Wild Horse Pass is East Valley side near I10/US60/AZ202 main interchange in Chandler AZ)... As for the Asbestos issue thats been a thorny subject for years but I have to wonder why the manufacturer of a metal hardware for pipefitting would have any liability regarding insulation material.. Yes while they may have suggested it they did not make any such insulation for the device that falls back on the makers of the insulation.. By logic conclusion the piping hardware maker had and would have no reason to know or suspect that asbestos was an issue they didnt make the insulation.. Heres why I say that.. By the ruling Pandoras box would open to leave even car makers on the hook as cars used asbestos in their brake pads for decades and in fact in some cases it can still be found in them.. EPA limits are 1pct of a product.. Just an interesting article that tells you what to this day sitll can and may have asbestos in it.. https://www.maacenter.org/asbestos/products/ The point is you cant unring the bell and you cant go blaming folks for things that werent known then.. Obviously NOW things are different but indeed when as Druff said other insulation is available and I dont believe the cost issue is a major concern (especially when we are talking about Uncle Sam for bloody sake)

I agree with your reading of the asbestos case, but see a curious inconsistency in the fuel tax case per some discussion in this article.

https://www.accountingtoday.com/news...ngton-fuel-tax

The treaty actually says “the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways.” A literal interpretation supports Kavanaugh’s interpretation that all citizens of the United States importing fuel to Washington state have to pay the state fuel tax, so the Yakama are not being unfairly discriminated against. But the precedent of how that clause has been interpreted in prior similar cases is that the Yakama did not interpret it that way, hence Gorsuch’s judicially conservative reading in favor of the Yakama.