PDA

View Full Version : Gorsuch Watch: He votes right again




angelatc
06-11-2018, 07:14 PM
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rejects-constitutional-challenge-to-state-law-on-insurance-policies-after-divorce/#more-271198

Addresses a Minnesota law that decrees that a divorce nullifies the beneficiary status of an ex-spouse of a life insurance policy.

1997 - guy marries his 2nd wife
2002 - MN passes above law
2007 - they divorce
201x - guy dies, his ex-wife is still listed as the beneficiary

His kids from the first marriage sue, stating that he simply forgot to take ex-wife off policy. Ex-wife posits that the contract was signed before the law was passed, so it's grandfathered in.

US Constitution says that states can't pass laws that interfere with pre-existing contracts, but the decision is 8-1 against the ex-wife. The majority opinion states that such restrictions are not absolute, intent is a factor, and if the man had wanted his ex-wife to remain the beneficiary, he would only have needed to notify the insurer.

Gorsuch was the lone dissenter.


He acknowledged that the “judicial power to declare a law unconstitutional should never be lightly invoked.” In his view, though, the court should have done exactly that because “the framers were absolute” when they drafted the contracts clause: If a law creates any impairments to a contract, it violates the clause – no exceptions. But even if you agree that the contracts clause only bars substantial impairments, he continued, the Minnesota law here still violates the Constitution, because a policyholder’s choice of a life-insurance beneficiary is “the whole point” of the policy.

Gorsuch also suggested that the reasoning on which the court relied to uphold the law is inconsistent. On the one hand, he noted, the court contended that the law is based on the premise that policyholders may forget to update their beneficiary designations after their divorce. That rationale, he argued, cannot be reconciled with the court’s assertion that the policyholder who wants to keep a former spouse as his beneficiary can simply notify the insurance company to that effect. “The statute,” Gorsuch asserted, “cannot simultaneously be necessary because people are inattentive to the details of their insurance policies and constitutional because they are hyperaware of those same details.”


I still love him!

Swordsmyth
06-11-2018, 07:20 PM
The majority are insane and Gorsuch is the best thing Trump has done.

Brian4Liberty
06-11-2018, 08:00 PM
The majority opinion states that such restrictions are not absolute, intent is a factor, and if the man had wanted his ex-wife to remain the beneficiary, he would only have needed to notify the insurer.

LOL. In this day and age, go ahead and "notify" a large company or government entity. The odds of them actually "saving" that information are slim to none.

Notify them - "Here's your confirmation number."
Call back - Do you have a record of this?"
"No."
"I have a confirmation number!"
"Sorry, that doesn't help."

timosman
06-11-2018, 09:37 PM
Why does the policy move to begin with?:confused: