SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
88
Location
BA
i977.photobucket.com_albums_ae259_zdadthrice_Pistolas_20Dos_tracksq.jpg
 

3inSlugger

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,879
Reaction score
72
Location
Yukon
Justice Roberts is a self-serving, legacy-building, agenda-driven turd. In other words, a lawyer.

Actually read this:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/



Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue is gone.

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

*A friend points out one other thing - go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now. Snowe gave it bipartisan cover coming out of committee, but she actually wasn’t the deciding vote.
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,950
Reaction score
2,160
Location
Oxford, MS
The first thing that came down, the mandate, unconstitutional, that was the first thing everybody reported. Mandate unconstitutional, big sigh of relief. And then within moments, wait a minute, wait a minute, we're reading further. Hold it just a second. The mandate's unconstitutional, but the court has decided it's a tax, and therefore it's okay.

So Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world. And the people who were characterizing it as such were right and were telling the truth. We have the biggest tax increase in the history of the world right in the middle of one of this country's worst recessions. In fact, as the vice president said yesterday, a depression for millions of Americans. The chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, said, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Not our job

I think the unconstitutional part came from two things. 1) CNN screwed up, jumped the gun and reported the wrong outcome and 2) Kennedy's descent said it was unconstitutional, but since he was in the minority, it doesn't matter as much. The ruling never said it was unconstitutional, only that the law stands as a tax (and not as a power of the commerce clause) IIRC
 

71buickfreak

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
4,790
Reaction score
30
Location
stillwater
I have thought about what you said about Roberts this morning. He could very well have been playing the game and really jacking with Obama's "no tax" thing. I have a hard time believing that though, as that is a risky move and he just handed obama a huge victory that he will tought. The libs will just say that 4 judges say it's not a tax and that is legal. Roberts opinion is moot.

The health care bill has some good parts- no discriminating against sick people for instance. I have diabetes, I can't anything but state-funded healthcare, period. If I worked for a corp, I would have to wait at least a year before being covered. Not my fault I have diabetes, but I can't get coverage. That said, I stopped my InsureOK coverage, I go to the doc 2-3 times a year for $65 a pop. I was paying $100 a month before. When I worked for a corp, I was paying $265 for myself and my wife. My mom was paying $700 a month and she worked for the state. Fix the problems, you don't just force everyone to buy into the broken system. greed for greed and greed for power. Makes me sick.
 

redmax51

Sharpshooter
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
5
Location
Tulsa
Wonder how this will effect SCOTUS's ratings, which aren't good to begin with...

Approval Rating for Justices Hits Just 44% in New Poll
June 7, 2012

Just 44 percent of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing and three-quarters say the justices’ decisions are sometimes influenced by their personal or political views, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News.

On the highest-profile issue now facing the court, the poll found that more than two-thirds of Americans hope that the court overturns some or all of the 2010 health care law when it rules, probably this month. There was scant difference in the court’s approval rating between supporters and opponents of the law.

Either way, though, many Americans do not seem to expect the court to decide the case solely along constitutional lines. Just one in eight Americans said the justices decided cases based only on legal analysis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/u...supreme-court-in-new-poll.html?pagewanted=all



Why should they care ? They're appointed for life, that's a silly meaningless poll.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom