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

[ScoobyDoo]

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.

You won't convince a single poster on this board that is right leaning that Roberts and Kennedy are conservative. You also won't convince them that Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are radicals.

 

[Bob Gray]

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.

So none of your liberals are radical, but the three conservative justices are? Very biased. The liberals vote in lock stop for liberal views in a similar manner to the three conservative justices. Then you have two in the middle that go either way at times.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

Both CNN and Fox screwed up and reported initially that the law was Unconstitutional.

http://www.latimes.com/business/mon...alth-care-ruling-20120628,0,7626860.htmlstory

Color me shocked.

OK, I'll say it. NBC actually got it right.

I expected the opposite ruling, and I figured that the juiciest reactions by far would come from NBC. So I tuned in and got "we have a ruling, but we can't report until we can get Pete Williams on camera." And they didn't - meaning they got it right the first time.

Kudos. Frankly, I would've expected both MSNBC and Fox to jump the gun, with CNN being the most likely to be patient. But that's giving too much credit to CNN.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

So none of your liberals are radical, but the three conservative justices are? Very biased. The liberals vote in lock stop for liberal views in a similar manner to the three conservative justices. Then you have two in the middle that go either way at times.

And, I rest my case. That sure didn't take long.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

OK, I'll say it. NBC actually got it right.

I expected the opposite ruling, and I figured that the juiciest reactions by far would come from NBC. So I tuned in and got "we have a ruling, but we can't report until we can get Pete Williams on camera." And they didn't - meaning they got it right the first time.

Kudos. Frankly, I would've expected both MSNBC and Fox to jump the gun, with CNN being the most likely to be patient. But that's giving too much credit to CNN.

MSNBC will be mild today. FOX is going to be in full "Derp" mode.

 

[Rover]

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

I'm not an avid court observer but its interesting that the govt official arguing the case (Verilli or something) was widely blasted for both the Immigration and Health Care defenses, but he by and large won both cases.

 

[amherstblackbear]

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

MSNBC will be mild today. FOX is going to be in full "Derp" mode.

They will, now. I expected the roles to be reversed.

I don't think my anecdote leads to any broad conclusions. Those two are still unofficial talking-point-tv of their respective parties. It's just nice to see that, even under open partisanship, there are a handful of folks who haven't had professionalism beaten out of them.

 

[joecct]

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.

They won't have to. It goes on your tax return and it either (a) lessens your refund or (b) increases the size of the check you write the IRS.

And if you don't eat your broccoli.....

Now that Congress has been given a blank check to tax anything for any purpose, they could conceivably:
(a) tax you if you don't own a gun
(b) tax you if you gain weight during the year once you're past 35.
or do anything the legislature deems to be worthy of their attention.

I'm surprised (no I'm not) that Romney did not pick up this point in his presser. It would have energized the entire GOP base and then some and may have guaranteed his election. Instead he stuck with the law as bad policy.

 

[bronconick]

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

They won't have to. It goes on your tax return and it either (a) lessens your refund or (b) increases the size of the check you write the IRS.

And if you don't eat your broccoli.....

From what I heard, they can't even increase the check you write for this. They just yank it out of the refund you thought you were getting. For now.

 

[Kepler]

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

So none of your liberals are radical, but the three conservative justices are? Very biased. The liberals vote in lock stop for liberal views in a similar manner to the three conservative justices. Then you have two in the middle that go either way at times.

No, Bob. If all nine justices were liberal you wouldn't call the two in the middle "centrists." A number line isn't just relative, its values are also absolute.

There have been plenty of far left justices (Stevens being the last one) and there will be again, particularly if Obama wins re-election and we get filibuster reform. The stars have just happened to align at this moment that there are bonkheads on the right but not the left. It will change.

 

[geezer]

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

The most convincing case for repeal that I've seen comes from Ed Morrissey at hotair.com (yes, I know I'm not supposed to repeat anything from that site, give me a break here, he's the only person that's saying it out loud):

"Basically, this is a tax that you have to pay to private companies. For all of the screaming the Right did over single-payer — and for good, outcome-based reasons — at least the money paid by taxpayers would go directly to government. The Supreme Court has signed off on what is, in very practical terms, a tax levied by the insurance industry on Americans simply for existing. It’s an amazing, and fearsome, decision that really should have both Right and Left horrified."

On reflection, others have pointed out that we can now legally be taxed for not buying, say, vitamin C... or enough shampoo, by the companies that manufacture those.

So now everyone can at least agree that a single-payer plan will be an improvement over the new status quo. Which many claim was Obama's goal all along (to create discontent with an increbibly shitty plan). If so, he's the best politician in history and gets my vote simply for a brilliantly innovative way to get his master plan put into action. More likely, it's already an incredible mess as it appears like everything else the government has ever done to "help" the ignorant masses.

 

[MinnFan]

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

No, Bob. If all nine justices were liberal you wouldn't call the two in the middle "centrists." A number line isn't just relative, its values are also absolute.

There have been plenty of far left justices (Stevens being the last one) and there will be again, particularly if Obama wins re-election and we get filibuster reform. The stars have just happened to align at this moment that there are bonkheads on the right but not the left. It will change.

Its a stretch to say that Ginsberg isn't radically far left. As far as the conservative judges, it depends on your definition of conservative. You seem to think that ruling as justices would have done pre-New Deal is radical. Those on the right view it as the proper role of the SC. It boils down to how you view the original intent of the Constitution and the role of government.

 

[bronconick]

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

Can't give Obama credit for being a great politician if he was thinking that. Realistically, we'd have to put up with a few years at a minimum of this plan before single payer grew in popularity to replace it. So at some future date, a President gains immense popularity for replacing "Obamacare."

Whoops.

 

[MinnFan]

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

Can't give Obama credit for being a great politician if he was thinking that. Realistically, we'd have to put up with a few years at a minimum of this plan before single payer grew in popularity to replace it. So at some future date, a President gains immense popularity for replacing "Obamacare."

Whoops.

Why do you think the fine is so low for not buying healthcare? Combine that with coverage for pre-existing conditions and you naturally bankrupt the current system and wind up throwing more and more people onto the gov't program putting it under and creating the need for a single-payer system.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

No, Bob. If all nine justices were liberal you wouldn't call the two in the middle "centrists." A number line isn't just relative, its values are also absolute.

There have been plenty of far left justices (Stevens being the last one) and there will be again, particularly if Obama wins re-election and we get filibuster reform. The stars have just happened to align at this moment that there are bonkheads on the right but not the left. It will change.

The fact that you don't like the three conservative judges doesn't mean that they are radical and your liberals aren't. You have no rational basis for claiming it on one side and not the other. They vote in lock step for liberal interpretations pretty much across the board. To me it's more likely that one of the three conservatives votes a different way than your four lock step liberal judges.

 

[bronconick]

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

Why do you think the fine is so low for not buying healthcare? Combine that with coverage for pre-existing conditions and you naturally bankrupt the current system and wind up throwing more and more people onto the gov't program putting it under and creating the need for a single-payer system.

If he's planning it that way, it's essentially at the cost of his legacy, and I'll give him serious props for a sacrifice like that. A law that bares his name that will take longer than his presidency to totally fail but will usher in a superior system eventually? People will curse the name "Obama" in those final years before single payer finally is installed.

****, we should have more politicians willing to do that sort of thing, given the serious problems we have.

Therefore, I don't think it was his plan. -

 

[Bob Gray]

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

And, I rest my case. That sure didn't take long.

Whatever your case was, I'm glad you're resting it. It can be rather tiresome. I've done my public service for the day.

 

[Rover]

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

The most convincing case for repeal that I've seen comes from Ed Morrissey at hotair.com (yes, I know I'm not supposed to repeat anything from that site, give me a break here, he's the only person that's saying it out loud):

"Basically, this is a tax that you have to pay to private companies. For all of the screaming the Right did over single-payer — and for good, outcome-based reasons — at least the money paid by taxpayers would go directly to government. The Supreme Court has signed off on what is, in very practical terms, a tax levied by the insurance industry on Americans simply for existing. It’s an amazing, and fearsome, decision that really should have both Right and Left horrified."

On reflection, others have pointed out that we can now legally be taxed for not buying, say, vitamin C... or enough shampoo, by the companies that manufacture those.

So now everyone can at least agree that a single-payer plan will be an improvement over the new status quo. Which many claim was Obama's goal all along (to create discontent with an increbibly shitty plan). If so, he's the best politician in history and gets my vote simply for a brilliantly innovative way to get his master plan put into action. More likely, it's already an incredible mess as it appears like everything else the government has ever done to "help" the ignorant masses.

Ummm...this is incorrect on a bunch of levels. Off the top, the govt is ultimately responsible for paying the bills of people who hit the ER without insurance. Therefore its not a tax you have to pay to private companies. The "taxing" part of it goes hypothetically to pay for your uninsured ER care.

Next, there's plenty of precedent for non-governmental organizations requiring payment from you for something as basic as where you live (condo association fees for example).

Finally, the knuckledragger idea of being forced to buy shampoo or veggies is stupid. Not showering isn't costing the taxpayers money. Nor is eating green beans instead of broccoli. This notion may appeal to simpletons, but I'm surprised someone with a college degree would be swayed by it.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

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.

FDR trying to up the number of judges from 9 to 15 in order to get his stuff declared Constitutional? That TRULY is legislating from the bench.

The only person who actually interpreted the Constitution on this one was Roberts.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

The only person who actually interpreted the Constitution on this one was Roberts.

Kind of my thinking as well.

Many here seem to accept the fact that tax/spend is legal based on the Constitution. Regardless of this...if the right side of the court just ruled to shut down legislations with a blanket...it violates the commerce clause...that seems a pretty radical pov.

Does the left side of the court rule in this manner frequently? I really don't know the answer to this.