Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
There's worse news. They speak French.
There's worse news. They speak French.
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
You realize that there are people other than you, all of whom make their own choices of who to read and listen to?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Here's yet another person, a longtime courtwatcher and writer for SCOTUSblog who states:
""I think he was determined to try to uphold some key parts of the law, if he could find a way, partly because ... he has grown concerned about the public perception that his court is a partisan-driven court."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/did-justice-roberts-change-obamacare-vote-last-minute-201536484.html
To the extent the court has caved to political pressure to vote in a certain direction, that is a loss for anyone who care about quaint concepts like an independent judiciary.
Oh, heavens, people suggest that Roberts did something akin to what Obama's been calling for him to do in the last months, namely respect what the legislative and executive branches have done and not make a political decision. Yup, that's a total stretch. You can really be ridiculous sometimes.
Here's yet another person, a longtime courtwatcher and writer for SCOTUSblog who states:
""I think he was determined to try to uphold some key parts of the law, if he could find a way, partly because ... he has grown concerned about the public perception that his court is a partisan-driven court."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/did-justice-roberts-change-obamacare-vote-last-minute-201536484.html
To the extent the court has caved to political pressure to vote in a certain direction, that is a loss for anyone who care about quaint concepts like an independent judiciary.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Whats amazing about Roberts opinion is that he says that its not a tax originally since a tax can't be ruled on until it takes effect (2014 in this case), but then later states it is a tax therefore making it constitutional. He threw out 200+ years of precedent on what Congress is allowed to tax saying it is covered under General Welfare. Please read Federalist #41 to see how the General Welfare Clause is supposed to be viewed. It is a statement of purpose, not direction.
We were a country were the people had all the power and granted the gov't a few, enumerated powers. That has now totally flipped. There is nothing stopping the majority from running over the minority. We have lost what made America different and special.
The good news is that its going to be easy for Congress to make up the $20B loss on its stake in GM. They can now say either buy a GM car or pay a $10,000 tax.
Whats amazing about Roberts opinion is that he says that its not a tax originally since a tax can't be ruled on until it takes effect (2014 in this case), but then later states it is a tax therefore making it constitutional. He threw out 200+ years of precedent on what Congress is allowed to tax saying it is covered under General Welfare. Please read Federalist #41 to see how the General Welfare Clause is supposed to be viewed. It is a statement of purpose, not direction.
We were a country were the people had all the power and granted the gov't a few, enumerated powers. That has now totally flipped. There is nothing stopping the majority from running over the minority. We have lost what made America different and special.
The good news is that its going to be easy for Congress to make up the $20B loss on its stake in GM. They can now say either buy a GM car or pay a $10,000 tax.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
They already sort of do this through import taxes.
They already sort of do this through import taxes.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I was going to let them find that out when they got there...
I was going to let them find that out when they got there...
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
that's absolutely right, and Roberts acknowledged as much. In fact, I don't think i've ever heard of a Chief Justice issuing such a stern rebuke to the President, the Congress, and the voting public when speaking officially from the bench:
My jaw dropped when I read that. Wow!
"You get what you vote for, people. If you are unhappy, don't blame us: vote differently."
that's absolutely right, and Roberts acknowledged as much. In fact, I don't think i've ever heard of a Chief Justice issuing such a stern rebuke to the President, the Congress, and the voting public when speaking officially from the bench:
My jaw dropped when I read that. Wow!
"You get what you vote for, people. If you are unhappy, don't blame us: vote differently."
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
The problem is that is their job if the law isn't constitutional. He says that it has to be enumerated while at the same time going against all precedent and creating a new definition of allowable taxes.
The problem is that is their job if the law isn't constitutional. He says that it has to be enumerated while at the same time going against all precedent and creating a new definition of allowable taxes.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I believe the message we can get from that is, "Come back in 2014 when the tax is enacted. We'll tell you if it's Constitutional."
I believe the message we can get from that is, "Come back in 2014 when the tax is enacted. We'll tell you if it's Constitutional."
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
You just go on believing that sparky!
Knuckledraggers are so cute. Say hi to Wilma and Barney Rubble next door for me.
You just go on believing that sparky!
Knuckledraggers are so cute. Say hi to Wilma and Barney Rubble next door for me.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Do they have Freedom Fries there?I was going to let them find that out when they got there...
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Since they are next door to you, why not just say hello to them yourself??
or have you annoyed them so much with your smugness that they aren't speaking to you any more?
Since they are next door to you, why not just say hello to them yourself??
or have you annoyed them so much with your smugness that they aren't speaking to you any more?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
OK 51 on a par 34 for 9 holes. Short game deserted me...
Conservative:
OK 51 on a par 34 for 9 holes. Short game deserted me...
Conservative:
"William Redman Carter" by Lazlo Zalezac
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
If we think our elected representatives (we all have 3) are doing a bad job, we have the constitutional right to replace them via the ballot box. If the legislature gets too far out of hand, some radicals start meeting in secret then in public and start handing our pamphlets that begin "When in the course of human events..."
But the SCOTUS ruled that the ACA is constitutional. It may be a bad law, but a bad law is not necessarily unconstitutional.
If we think our elected representatives (we all have 3) are doing a bad job, we have the constitutional right to replace them via the ballot box. If the legislature gets too far out of hand, some radicals start meeting in secret then in public and start handing our pamphlets that begin "When in the course of human events..."
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Methinks MinnFan ain't too confident about his party's chances of winning the Presidency, hence his dashed hopes the Courts would do the dirty work for him.
Methinks MinnFan ain't too confident about his party's chances of winning the Presidency, hence his dashed hopes the Courts would do the dirty work for him.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Haven't implied powers been settled law since McCulloch v. Maryland?
Haven't implied powers been settled law since McCulloch v. Maryland?
Foxton
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Conservatives, constantly trying to reinvent a definition of what they are to make themselves more palatable to anyone with half a functioning brain.
tl:dr "a whole lot of derp"
Conservatives, constantly trying to reinvent a definition of what they are to make themselves more palatable to anyone with half a functioning brain.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Many of the people who call themselves "conservative" now do not fit that definition. They rail against things that have been in place for a generation or more, arguing for wholesale substitution of untested alternatives that are "better" (or alternatives that used to exist and were thrown out because they were judged in the context of the time to be "worse"). As a result, the people who are usually called "liberal" are often more conservative than the people who are usually called "conservative".
That doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything wrong with the definition you gave, but it doesn't really fit the typical political spectrum in the U.S. these days.
Many of the people who call themselves "conservative" now do not fit that definition. They rail against things that have been in place for a generation or more, arguing for wholesale substitution of untested alternatives that are "better" (or alternatives that used to exist and were thrown out because they were judged in the context of the time to be "worse"). As a result, the people who are usually called "liberal" are often more conservative than the people who are usually called "conservative".
That doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything wrong with the definition you gave, but it doesn't really fit the typical political spectrum in the U.S. these days.
- Status