USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Why?
If it were struck down, the GOP could still hit Obama on wasting the first two years in office, not only ignoring the economy but pursuing unconstitutional policy. That's no small stick.
I think Jon Stewart is getting a bit stale, but he had a good segment last night, using about 2 dozen talking heads to explain why any SC decision would clearly help/hurt Obama/Romney.
Why?
If it were struck down, the GOP could still hit Obama on wasting the first two years in office, not only ignoring the economy but pursuing unconstitutional policy. That's no small stick.
I think Jon Stewart is getting a bit stale, but he had a good segment last night, using about 2 dozen talking heads to explain why any SC decision would clearly help/hurt Obama/Romney.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Roberts really has gone liberal, though if it was 6-3, his flip wasn't the deciding vote. Big federalism again carries the day with this court. Wonder when they'll mandate me to eat broccoli (or brussels sprouts, yeck!).
Roberts really has gone liberal, though if it was 6-3, his flip wasn't the deciding vote. Big federalism again carries the day with this court. Wonder when they'll mandate me to eat broccoli (or brussels sprouts, yeck!).
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
That's what the Republicans get for being less strident in the Supreme Court nominations processes over the years. The Democratic administrations always get liberal justices on the court, while the Republican administrations sometimes get conservative justices on the court.
Gonna make it tough for Obama this fall though, although Romney is hardly the best Republican candidate to make hay on this.
That's what the Republicans get for being less strident in the Supreme Court nominations processes over the years. The Democratic administrations always get liberal justices on the court, while the Republican administrations sometimes get conservative justices on the court.
Gonna make it tough for Obama this fall though, although Romney is hardly the best Republican candidate to make hay on this.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
That sounds right to me. It is a tax. Always was a tax. No different than the tax I pay for Medicare.
That sounds right to me. It is a tax. Always was a tax. No different than the tax I pay for Medicare.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Your powers of understatement are in top form, today.
Your powers of understatement are in top form, today.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
It's my Minnesota heritage.Your powers of understatement are in top form, today.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
For Obama, there was always the problem that Republicans would use health care as a rallying cry in the fall.
My opinion is more along the lines of the "keep it simple, stupid" model. I think it's a win for BO. Republicans could have pivoted to the economy, which is what Romney is practically begging people to do, anyway. On the other hand, it would have been really hard for BO to justify himself if the centerpiece of his presidency was unconstitutional. That's just all kinds of bad.
Sometimes a win is a win and a loss is a loss. November's still a long way off, though.
For Obama, there was always the problem that Republicans would use health care as a rallying cry in the fall.
My opinion is more along the lines of the "keep it simple, stupid" model. I think it's a win for BO. Republicans could have pivoted to the economy, which is what Romney is practically begging people to do, anyway. On the other hand, it would have been really hard for BO to justify himself if the centerpiece of his presidency was unconstitutional. That's just all kinds of bad.
Sometimes a win is a win and a loss is a loss. November's still a long way off, though.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Kennedy's dissent (with Alito, Thomas and Scalia) would have invalidated the entire act.
Kennedy's dissent (with Alito, Thomas and Scalia) would have invalidated the entire act.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I say this kills any chance Romney had of election. Now he has to propose a viable alternative, and Obama doesn't. There probably IS no viable alternative, so he's up against it. Obama simply rides the status quo to a comfortable victory.
If both sides had to come up with something new, the election would have actually been interesting.
I say this kills any chance Romney had of election. Now he has to propose a viable alternative, and Obama doesn't. There probably IS no viable alternative, so he's up against it. Obama simply rides the status quo to a comfortable victory.
If both sides had to come up with something new, the election would have actually been interesting.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
It'll certainly fire up the Republican base. If the court is tilting liberal at this point, how bad would it get for Republicans if Obama gets four more years and the oldest justices are the conservatives, so most likely to be replaced the soonest.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Ginsburg's the oldest on there, though Scalia's just been weird lately to the point where I wonder if he had a mini-stroke or something.
Ginsburg's the oldest on there, though Scalia's just been weird lately to the point where I wonder if he had a mini-stroke or something.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I see. I knew that but had forgotten it. I really don't think the base needed much firing up. They already hate Obama more than any other President in my lifetime. Maybe they hated Carter more, but I doubt it.
I see. I knew that but had forgotten it. I really don't think the base needed much firing up. They already hate Obama more than any other President in my lifetime. Maybe they hated Carter more, but I doubt it.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I stand corrected. The two youngest justices are liberal (and I'm tempted to say the first three with Roberts) and then it's a mix going back.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
The most curious thing about this is the status of the, well, tax for not purchasing insurance.
Apparently, there is no criminal penalty for not paying (as there is with income tax).
So why pay it? Patriotism?!?
Unless there's some more clarification on the issue, I have a feeling a lot of younger folks are going to test this. They may find out about the existence of non-criminal penalties, though, when they show up at a car dealership or a mortgage office with a civil judgment on their FICO/Beacon.
Simply by declaring constitutionality, the SC hasn't made the law any less of a mess.
The most curious thing about this is the status of the, well, tax for not purchasing insurance.
Apparently, there is no criminal penalty for not paying (as there is with income tax).
So why pay it? Patriotism?!?
Unless there's some more clarification on the issue, I have a feeling a lot of younger folks are going to test this. They may find out about the existence of non-criminal penalties, though, when they show up at a car dealership or a mortgage office with a civil judgment on their FICO/Beacon.
Simply by declaring constitutionality, the SC hasn't made the law any less of a mess.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
They should be fired up, but having a strong attractive candidate is part of firing up the base, and Romney has hardly met the bill in that sense.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Really? There's no penalty for not buying insurance? If so, young people will walk away in droves, as part of the perverseness of Obamacare is that it's a big wealth transfer from younger to older people. I can't believe they wouldn't have put teeth in there though.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Lawrence O'Donnell has been reporting that all week. It is a mess.
Lawrence O'Donnell has been reporting that all week. It is a mess.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
It looks like the SCOTUS said straight out that the mandate would be unconstitutional under the Commerce clause, yet the Act was upheld anyway by treating the mandate instead as a tax. 5-4 decision with Kennedy in minority and Roberts in majority.
I don't have time to read the actual ruling now.
Here it is for those who want to see it:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/scotushealth.pdf
It looks like the SCOTUS said straight out that the mandate would be unconstitutional under the Commerce clause, yet the Act was upheld anyway by treating the mandate instead as a tax. 5-4 decision with Kennedy in minority and Roberts in majority.
I don't have time to read the actual ruling now.
Here it is for those who want to see it:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/scotushealth.pdf
- Status