The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Gotta fess up here Bob, that was partly my motivation!

I kinda suspected that. Thought I'd give ya a little satisfaction!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Remember how Roberts was going to overturn the <strike>ACA</strike>[mandate]?

Um, he did overturn the mandate, the law was initially found unconstitutional because it exceeded the limits of the commerce clause, that's why there is no mandate any more and there's no penalty any more.....

If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. If the power to “regulate” something included the power to create it, many of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous.

The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.

The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding now.

The proposition that Congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent….we have never permitted Congress to anticipate that activity itself in order to regulate individuals not currently engaged in commerce.[emphases added]

However, the law was then allowed to stand under an alternate theory, the taxing power. It's now a choice: either you can buy insurance or you can pay a tax.

The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.

.

Roberts was playing a long game, which is becoming more clear. The important precedent -- limits on government power under the commerce clause -- is now settled and established case law. Had he overturned the law on these grounds, the decision could easily remain as contentious as Roe v Wade has been.

However, by allowing PPACA to stand under the taxing power, Roberts both made it easier for future Courts to uphold the important precedent, while he also made it clear that he thought the law was unworkable and would collapse under its own weight. We'll see if he was right. So far his prescience seems pretty much on target.

We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies.

It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Like shootin' fish in a barrel.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Thanks. Now I am exposed to one of unofan's yammerings. Too bad they don't make the ignore list more sophisticated and block when other people quote someone on your ignore list. But, sounds like unofan is still behaving in a classless manner, so in a way it's helpful to affirm why he's still on ignore.

Jesus Christ, Bob. Your passive aggressiveness is worse than a middle-aged housewife who watches the Kardashians all day. Are you taking your wife's estrogen pills or something?

 

[Carter]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Jesus Christ, Bob. Your passive aggressiveness is worse than a middle-aged housewife who watches the Kardashians all day. Are you taking your wife's estrogen pills or something?

Let's be fair. We really don't know that he isn't a middle-aged housewife who watches the Kardashians all day.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Not surprising given the non-profit status of the organizations.

You are a law student and you say it is "not surprising." One might infer that the professors who are teaching you also would say that the ruling is "not surprising." (In one of the articles I read, it was stated that this ruling was the third on the same kind of case, all three of them going the same way.)

Wouldn't you then think that a person who is touted as a former professor of constitutional law, who even swore an oath to "uphold and protect the Constitution", might also find it "not surprising"?

Hmm....then why would he have allowed his administration to promulgate such a regulation in the first place, eh? though I suppose that's "not surprising" either?

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You are a law student and you say it is "not surprising." One might infer that the professors who are teaching you also would say that the ruling is "not surprising." (In one of the articles I read, it was stated that this ruling was the third on the same kind of case, all three of them going the same way.)

Wouldn't you then think that a person who is touted as a former professor of constitutional law, who even swore an oath to "uphold and protect the Constitution", might also find it "not surprising"?

Hmm....then why would he have allowed his administration to promulgate such a regulation in the first place, eh? though I suppose that's "not surprising" either?

Becuase as usual it will most likely be upheld on a higher court level, and you will disappear from the board for awhile to escape the humiliation I will once again be raining down on you! See, if I want to sue against say contraception, I'm going to find the most backwards, cracker, activist judge in the most conservative place and try to get a ruling that favors me. Hell, the whole ACA lawsuits worked that way until the SCOTUS slapped it down. You do remember that, right?

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You are a law student and you say it is "not surprising." One might infer that the professors who are teaching you also would say that the ruling is "not surprising." (In one of the articles I read, it was stated that this ruling was the third on the same kind of case, all three of them going the same way.)

Wouldn't you then think that a person who is touted as a former professor of constitutional law, who even swore an oath to "uphold and protect the Constitution", might also find it "not surprising"?

Hmm....then why would he have allowed his administration to promulgate such a regulation in the first place, eh? though I suppose that's "not surprising" either?

First, I get that you're an uber-conservative who likes to take as many pot-shots at President Obama as possible. It's a little sad and pathetic, but I understand it.

Second, "not surprising" does not mean obvious, or clear. For example, I was "not surprised" when Yale beat North Dakota last year in the NCAA Regional Final. Does that mean that I should have expected it even when Yale beat Minnesota the night before, and Minnesota was a better team than North Dakota? No. Obama (and his administration) likely have a different interpretation of what the Constitution means than this judge. It happens all the time, and you are a fool if you think Obama is the first president to have one of his programs shut down by a court.

Third, as Rover points out, just because a Federal District Court rules one way, doesn't mean that the Court of Appeals are going to uphold that. I wouldn't be surprised if the Court of Appeals reversed.

Finally, I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but I'm not an Obama fan. I infer from your post that you may think that I'm some sort of uber-liberal who was crushed by the decision. While I'm certainly significantly further left than you are, I'm probably around the center of the political spectrum.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

First, I get that you're an uber-conservative .

Funny, I always thought that a belief in individual liberty, the rule of law, and equality of opportunity were beliefs that were shared by all Americans, no matter what their political affiliation. It's really a sad commentary on the state of affairs these days that these values are now consigned only to "conservatives" and dismissed out of hand as being quaint and old-fashioned.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Funny, I always thought that a belief in individual liberty, the rule of law, and equality of opportunity were beliefs that were shared by all Americans, no matter what their political affiliation.

Sounds like you're a fellow member of the ACLU!

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Funny, I always thought that a belief in individual liberty, the rule of law, and equality of opportunity were beliefs that were shared by all Americans, no matter what their political affiliation. It's really a sad commentary on the state of affairs these days that these values are now consigned only to "conservatives" and dismissed out of hand as being quaint and old-fashioned.

So.....where were you when the Patriot Act was made law?

oh, that's right, a conservative did that so its okay.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

First, I get that you... like to take as many pot-shots at President Obama as possible.

Um, it was The Washington Post and Politico that named him Liar of the Year, not me! I've never once used that word on this site ever in conjunction with anything he's said, except this one time right now and only in the context of quoting someone else.

If I happen to notice discrepancies between what he says and what he does, how is that anything other than "observant"?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Sounds like you're a fellow member of the ACLU!

So what is that you dislike about individual liberty, the rule of law, and equality of opportunity?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

So.....where were you when the Patriot Act was made law?

oh, that's right, a conservative did that so its okay.

You cannot point to a single post on this site in which I ever defended the Patriot Act.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You cannot point to a single post on this site in which I ever defended the Patriot Act.

Nor can I find one where you blasted it before the Bush adminstration went south either. Funny how that works.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Nor can I find one where you blasted it before the Bush adminstration went south either. Funny how that works.

His enrollment date on this site was in 2011. How could he have made comment here if he wasn't here prior to January 2009?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

His enrollment date on this site was in 2011. How could he have made comment here if he wasn't here prior to January 2009?

there you go again, being logical and observant.....

It sometimes seems that the debates here are less between conservative and progressive than they are between empiricists and ideologues.....you notice that a public figure routinely says one thing and does another and you are somehow "partisan" as a result?

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It sometimes seems that the debates here are less between conservative and progressive than they are between empiricists and ideologues.....you notice that a public figure routinely says one thing and does another and you are somehow "partisan" as a result?

I think everyone sees you as extremely partisan because you only (at least, from what I have seen you post) attack one side. Plus, you attack it in the same way that other extremely partisan people attack that side.

When someone does that, doesn't it seem pretty natural to call them partisan? It shouldn't be that confusing for you to understand.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

His enrollment date on this site was in 2011. How could he have made comment here if he wasn't here prior to January 2009?

Hence the "funny how that works" comment. He put something out that was impossible to verify, so I countered with something that was impossible for him to deny. Two can play at this game, although perhaps my response was too subtle for my audience.

 

[unofan]

Um, it was The Washington Post and Politico that named him Liar of the Year, not me! I've never once used that word on this site ever in conjunction with anything he's said, except this one time right now and only in the context of quoting someone else.

If I happen to notice discrepancies between what he says and what he does, how is that anything other than "observant"?

So you've never referred to the president using anything other than his name and/or title? Never called him Oblamer, Obummer, or any other plays on his name?