The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[Tiggsy]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

5-4 on this doesn't make the court look very good.

Did you expect anything else? To me the only suprise was Roberts and Kennedy switched their usual spots.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-28-10-17-22
5-4 decision.

Early erroneous media reports I saw/heard said 6-3, including ABC radio. So, this really is on Roberts' shoulders.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Early erroneous media reports I saw/heard said 6-3, including ABC radio. So, this really is on Roberts' shoulders.

Yeah, this is his fault. Usually Kennedy is the deciding vote. Not this time.

This is hilarious.

How it played on Fox News:

Bill Hemmer: “We have breaking news here on the Fox News Channel, the individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional. This was a part of the law that was at the center of the oral arguments three months ago on this day when the justices hammered away at the White House and the administration's attorney, questioning the validity of the individual mandate and asking the following pointed question: if you can legislate healthcare, where can the federal government be stopped?”

Banner on the screen: “Supreme Court finds health care individual mandate unconstitutional”

Megyn Kelly: “Wait, we’re getting conflicting information. If you follow SCOTUSBlog.com ... the individual mandate is surviving as a tax. This is not confirmed by us yet, this is according to SCOTUSblog which also has the opinion. ... Everyone’s still trying to figure this out.”

Hemmer: “This is complicated ... we’re still trying to figure this out. Be cautious with us, we’re trying to do the best we can ...”

Banner change: “Supreme Court upholds parts and invalidates parts of health care law”

Banner change: “Supreme Court rules individual mandate will become a tax”

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Yeah, this is his fault. Usually Kennedy is the deciding vote. Not this time.

Long term, this seems to change the court's complexion significantly. You have four liberal justices, three conservative justices, and two in the middle that aren't always predictable.


Oh, and way to only show Fox's messup, but cut out CNN's messup. Never miss a chance to slant things, eh?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Long term, this seems to change the court's complexion significantly. You have four liberal justices, three conservative justices, and two in the middle that aren't always predictable.


Oh, and way to only show Fox's messup, but cut out CNN's messup. Never miss a chance to slant things, eh?

LOL. I mentioned CNN"s below.

Politico has video of CNN.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/06/cnn-fox-fail-the-supreme-court-ruling-127544.html

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I really don't know enough to know that this is a truly good law.

But what makes me happiest about the ruling is that...it forces congress to do its job. Congress needs to step up and develop good laws that address the needs of the country...and that lead to a balanced budget. We really shouldn't look to the supreme court to weed out laws unless they are directly against the Constitution bailing congress out all the time.

It appears this is Roberts interpretation as well.

Are you saying that Congress won't be able to "...hurry up and pass this thing so we can see what's in it" anymore, as Rep. Pelosi was so excited to do?

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

So 1 out of 9 justices call it a tax and that makes it a tax? That's the same as the number of dentists who DON'T recommend Crest toothpaste. I guess that means Crest isn't a good toothpaste after all.

It was actually 5 out of 9. Otherwise it wouldn't be the "majority" opinion.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Are you saying that Congress won't be able to "...hurry up and pass this thing so we can see what's in it" anymore, as Rep. Pelosi was so excited to do?

If people cared about anything more than winning a partisan victory, that right there should have sunk this on arrival in Congress. It's horrible when any legislative body passes bills without knowing what they are passing, regardless of the issue or what side one is on. To do so on such a monumental issue is just further compounds how bad a practice it is.

Counting on Congress to meaningfully address the problems and issues this country faces is a very fanciful notion, but ignores history, especially recent.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Are you saying that Congress won't be able to "...hurry up and pass this thing so we can see what's in it" anymore, as Rep. Pelosi was so excited to do?

Yeah, that damm Pelosi. She's so creative that she found ways to pass laws that no one else ever had.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Yeah, this is his fault. Usually Kennedy is the deciding vote. Not this time.

This is hilarious.

This is the kind of crap we get when there are several 24 hour news channels all fighting to be the first to "break" the news. I expect nothing less from any of them.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Romney says that Obamacare (or is it national Romneycare) is bad policy.

And he will use executive mandate to repeal day one. Are presidents and the right beyond sticking to the intent of the Constitution?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Ever since FDR, justices have been placed to try to "legislate from the bench" instead of truly interpreting the Constitution.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Yah, MinnFan, stop caring about freedom and whether big federalism will invade the few parts of your life they aren't already meddling in. What are you, a patriot? That's very passe with today's crowd.

The freedom to not be responsible and go without insurance and then stick me with the bill? No thanks. Bottom line is a conservative court upheld Obamacare, so quit crying like babies. Its the law. Far from being a patriot, MinnFan is a sore loser.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Ever since Washington, justices have been placed to try to "legislate from the bench" instead of truly interpreting the Constitution.

Fixed your post.

It's legislating from the bench when it's against my wishes and it's interpreting the Constitution when it's according to my wishes.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Chief Justice Roberts and the rest of the majority may have just done the country a favor.

The 2012 election becomes a referendum on the power to tax and the purpose of the tax code. Chief Justice (ironic isn't it?) John Marshall once said "The power to tax is the power to destroy." For years the various legislatures have taxed tobacco and liquor to help regulate its negative affects upon the population. Now we have a "virtue tax" that will force us to comply with a law. Unprecedented. Where does the taxing authority of the legislature end?

If I was the GOP, I'd be hammering this point all day and night.

Very well put. I agree, this was the kind of thinking behind my comment that the ruling long-term would not help BHO. "If you can tax us for not buying health insurance, then you can tax us for not exercising, or you can tax us for not ......"

What is the limit of the government's taxing power?

The people and whom they vote for!





btw, It seems to me that Roberts was "conservative" in his ruling....he did find the law unconstitutional under the commerce clause, after all, and he also said that if there were a constitutional way to interpret the law, then the Court should defer to the Legislature's power to pass laws and not over-rule them.

Two 5-4 votes in one!

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Are you saying that Congress won't be able to "...hurry up and pass this thing so we can see what's in it" anymore, as Rep. Pelosi was so excited to do?

They don't read anything. Anyone who pays any attention to Congress would know this already. Pelosi's a dumbass for saying that out loud and giving away a free soundbite, but it's hardly news to intelligent people.

The PATRIOT Act was introduced into 8 House subcommittees October 23rd, 2001. It passed the House on the 24th, the Senate on the 25th and President Bush signed it into law October 26th, 2001. You really think anyone read that?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Romney says that Obamacare (or is it national Romneycare) is bad policy.

And he will use executive mandate to repeal day one. Are presidents and the right beyond sticking to the intent of the Constitution?

Executive Mandate?

Wow. Elect Romney now. He is Mr. Fix It.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Long term, this seems to change the court's complexion significantly. You have four liberal justices, three conservative justices, and two in the middle that aren't always predictable.

I'd argue that you have four liberal justices, no centrists, two conservative justices, and three radical right justices. This week moved Kennedy from centrist to conservative and Roberts from radical right to conservative.

 

[MUnRPI]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

The IRS will have to come to my gdam house and take my furniture before I buy some ****ty health insurance.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'd argue that you have four liberal justices, no centrists, two conservative justices, and three radical right justices. This week moved Kennedy from centrist to conservative and Roberts from radical right to conservative.

My assessment as well...where conservative in this context is very healthy.