Supreme Court part of Obama conspiracy.....
 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85R06420120628


Dave

The ruling took me by surprise. It was hilarious when Roberts announced that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. All of the right wingers started furiously Tweeting their victory. CNN and Fox News started reporting the good news on the air. That was before Roberts said, but the mandate is actually a tax and that is constitutional. I here that all the celebrating Fox News talking heads faces turned ashen when they found out the ACA was ruled constitutional.

EXTRA! EXTRA! DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN

Before everyone starts calling Obama a liar, like they did on the right wing talk shows, Just remember that the Solicitor General argued the tax angle before the SC. For being such a bumbling idiot the SG sure got a couple of big wins for Obama this week.

One has to wonder why Roberts sided with the majority in this case. Kennedy was the suspected swing vote one way or the other.

Appropriate legal interpretation?

LMAO!!!



but to be fair, I never would have thought of that. ;)

Citizens United? Roberts has no problem twisting the law to fit what he wants. I think it has more to do with the Roberts Court legacy.

BWAHHAHAHA,

http://www.politicalchat.org/attachm...1&d=1340924514

Good one!!:D Betcha they will want Roberts head on a pike, next.

Roberts did not want the stink of the Tea Party to contaminate the stature of the Court. He may have saved the GOP in the long run also. Maybe he thought about the people he would have taken medical care from if he struck it down and did the right thing by declaring it valid.

If we're throwing out conspiracies, one might say that Roberts used the taxing authority as a reason to hold up the Act, intending to give the GOP ammunition for the campaign. I notice that the taxation aspect of the case showed up early today from one of this board's more reliable repeaters of GOP talking points.

Regards,

D-Ray

I wonder how Nordquisling is taking it?:)

Maybe Roberts figured he ought to do the honorable thing....

From what I've heard and read (and I'm no attorney by any stretch) there was a way of reading the act as constitutional and a way of reading it as unconstitutional. Apparently the Court has a history in such cases of opting for the constitutional reading. Perhaps that is simply what Roberts was doing when he viewed the penalty as a tax and therefore within the reach of Congressional power.

I think this is a set up. I think Robert's is strengthening states rights over federal mandates knowing that individual states will ignore federal guidelines in many areas in favor of tradition conservative politicians.

This will only serve to further increase the divide between the moderate democrats and the fat belt states.

Also as a tax this program can be repealed with a simple 50 votes which is likely to happen if Romney wins.

I agree that Roberts is being political. The right will let this pass and he'll be able to use political capitol gained to really hit next time. I suspect he already knows what he's going after.

Funny listening to NPR fawning over him yesterday :)

The real SC conspiracy is, the more power any branch has over the people, the more power the SC has, therefore an expanding government is a good thing for the SC.

Pete

I totally agree.

And that's what you guys want on the Bench? Partisan politicians?

If the Supreme Court can anoint a president (Bush v. Gore) and create law (Citizens United) in addition to the highly questionable practice of Judicial Review, is there any doubt which branch is the most powerful?

John

Um, I firmly believe the government is out of control already. You want the government to be all powerful? Then guess what happens when the other guy gets in.

Pete

I still have more respect for the judiciary than the other two branches of government. By a mile, in fact.

Pat, who reviews the Reviewers?

John

They're reviewed before the fact (i.e., during confirmation). I didn't say I'm totally enamored of the Judiciary in which there are certainly some pompous blowhards (e.g., Scalia) and some incompetents (e.g., Thomas), but I still hold them in much higher regard than Congress.

I feel your concern....however they will not repeal Obamacare. Their base will become upset with the loss of coverage. Tea Party members have pre-exsiting conditions too.....I think.

I'm not sure ignorance is covered by the PPACA.;)

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm …" — Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary: an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” Thomas Jefferson in letter to Charles Hammond August 18th, 1821

:)

Or should that be :(

Pete

Can you imagine the words he would use to describe today's Congress?

Both these letters were written after Marbury v. Madison which Jefferson, strongly opposed. He also wrote this to Abigail Adams (he and John Adams were feuding).

"... the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

John

Everybody seems to have forgotten that the justices serve at the pleasure of Congress. Read Federalist LXXVIII and LXXIX. I swear there were time when Jefferson spoke only to hear the sound of his own voice Sunday, Tuesday Thursday and Saturday he is for it, Monday, wednesday and Friday he was agin it.

I like the 'lift the arm' comment. Regardless of his bent at the time his words are remarkably prophetic.

He also mentioned somewhere that 'impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow' (from memory). There is NO check on the SC, no effective one. When is the last time they were ignored?

Finn, I'd love to hear that. I'd settle for Royko too though :)

Pete

I think the 26 states may well be in for a shock. I heard some apalling numbers of people that fall into the cracks of Medicare. They miss out for a number of reasons, money, age, etc. However if those 26 states do not take advantage of the PPACA's expansion and these poor souls are still out in the cold, don't forget - they still vote and apparently there are a lot of them.

I think political pressure will have some bearing on whether or not a state will attempt to ignore federal guidelines. Once the full extent of the benefits of this law are truly understood, I'm not convinced that there will be the political will at the state level to resist full implementation.

Rick Scott, Mitch Daniels, Scott Walker, Rick Snyder, Bobby Jindal, Jan Brewer...........

John

Hey don't snub Kasich! ;)

Medicare has a conservative 25 trillion (yes with a t) unfunded liability. Quick, expand it.

Pete

Oh, I thought about putting him on the list (as well as Chris Christie) but those others are a whole 'nother ball game. I should have put Paul LePage on the list though. That guy is freakin' nuts!

John

Yeah Ohio is just a hot bed of anti-Medicare sentiment and hates government hand-outs. I know better. It is (or was sadly) all UAW, United Steel and Uncle Sam, no matter what the guys drinking Pabst say....:p

That's NE Ohio plus Toledo & a bit of Appalachia (who's getting quite wealthy from fracking btw). The rest of Ohio is as red as a red throated red headed red peckered red woodpecker in a red woods :) At least in local/state elections.

Heck Traficant's been hanging out at Tea Parties, and coal miner Appalachians are super pissed at Obama. They see him as anti-coal.

John, Kasich keeps it up, he'll be Pres someday. The most vocal Pres we've ever had - he talks A LOT :)

Pete

From Robert's perspective it was the only option to maintain the reputation of the court. The decision did several things, but primarily insulated the Robert's Court from the assertion of being partisan. The decision was completely in character for John Roberts and I applaud him for sticking to his legal philosophy. There is a lot of nice subtle stuff in the decision and I find it an interesting read. I'm waiting for D-ray's perspective wrt the seminar he's attending.

As one of my commentators wrote yesterday: " The most wasted protest is one in front of the Supreme Court building." I'm with William Howard Taft on the relative positions of desirable top jobs in Washington.
I can't see the close friends, Scalia and Ginsburg, havng a partisan dabate over dinner despite their diverging legal philosphies. That IMO says a lot about the nature of the SC: decorum. style, deliberation, punctuality, and a long term view yet steeped in tradition.

Like I said Ohio....;)

You do not like the Tea Party either...perhaps there is some hope for you...

Maybe when they open a tap and methane comes out they won't be so thrilled with fracking (Haliburton loophole).

As for the coal miners some of us are more than pissed with their open pit mines destroying the beauty of the countryside and polluting streams.

Perhaps Rob. I don't know and I do worry a bit about it.

LMAO!!

Pete