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 Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Those days are long gone. And the Court's failings are just more evidence of such.I find it disheartening that "winning" or at least "avoid losing" are such high priorities these days, I miss a time when there was widespread agreement that principle and character were more important, since if you didn't maintain them steadily they would quickly lose their relevance. What a shame.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
The Court was always a political organ, and law was always a negotiation. What people who clutch their pearls are usually saying is "I really liked it when my side won all the time."
But the hyper-politicization of the current Court began with Scalia, who has aggressively driven the Court towards his preferred outcomes with zero regard for legal merit. True, others have come after him on both sides with the same naked partisanship, but he's the vanguard of the "politician-jurist-diva" who dominates the Court now.
The Court was always a political organ, and law was always a negotiation. What people who clutch their pearls are usually saying is "I really liked it when my side won all the time."
But the hyper-politicization of the current Court began with Scalia, who has aggressively driven the Court towards his preferred outcomes with zero regard for legal merit. True, others have come after him on both sides with the same naked partisanship, but he's the vanguard of the "politician-jurist-diva" who dominates the Court now.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Oh, come on now. He's the only strict constructionist on the Court. Hell, Roberts is a big Namby Pamby compared to Mr. Purity.
Oh, come on now. He's the only strict constructionist on the Court. Hell, Roberts is a big Namby Pamby compared to Mr. Purity.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
However, with the current "my party before all else" philosophy in the State legislatures (drawing districts), the prospects are dim for any bipartisanship in the Federal legislature.
If Congress writes a bad law, it's not up to the courts to rewrite it for them (though they seem to do that, don't they). Reject it, tell the legislature where they goofed so that they can fix it. If the legislature does not want to or can't fix the law, then maybe the law was bad to begin with or the people need to elect a new legislature.
However, with the current "my party before all else" philosophy in the State legislatures (drawing districts), the prospects are dim for any bipartisanship in the Federal legislature.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
They're not going to fix any laws. They just pass them based on whatever mob they're following. The Court is what protects us from the mob.
They're not going to fix any laws. They just pass them based on whatever mob they're following. The Court is what protects us from the mob.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
It's funny how a "strict constructionist," with access to thousands of pages specifically laying out the legislative intent of Obamacare, is about to claim that all of that evidence means nothing in the face of a typo.
It's been obvious for a decade that Scalia's claim to be an originalist was just a fig leaf to hide his own activist agenda behind, but nothing's gonna top Burwell for showing the SCOTUS' self-appointed emperor is buck naked.
At the end of the day, the most compelling reason to vote for Hillary in 18 months will be to ensure that she fills his seat when they plant him.
It's funny how a "strict constructionist," with access to thousands of pages specifically laying out the legislative intent of Obamacare, is about to claim that all of that evidence means nothing in the face of a typo.
It's been obvious for a decade that Scalia's claim to be an originalist was just a fig leaf to hide his own activist agenda behind, but nothing's gonna top Burwell for showing the SCOTUS' self-appointed emperor is buck naked.
At the end of the day, the most compelling reason to vote for Hillary in 18 months will be to ensure that she fills his seat when they plant him.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
For a liberal to complain that certain justices constantly push their agenda is hilarious. The libs are far better at it than conservative justices, with the libs being reliable votes to back any liberal agenda issue and have been for decades and decades.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Comedy at it's finest. Feel free to secede. Hell, Texas claims they don't have to cause they've never been a State to begin with. Follow their lead.
Comedy at it's finest. Feel free to secede. Hell, Texas claims they don't have to cause they've never been a State to begin with. Follow their lead.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Sulla wouldn't quite agree, but he'd have a better solution than the courts (at least to him).
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
With such pervasive judicial legislation "for decades and decades," by liberal justices, you must have dozens of cases to use as proof. Cite four.
With such pervasive judicial legislation "for decades and decades," by liberal justices, you must have dozens of cases to use as proof. Cite four.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Not the point. Liberals understand that the "Magnificence of the Law" is just another ping pong ball in the political game of pressure advocacy, because we almost always lose. It's frauds like Scalia that fake the "distinerested jurist" drag act when all they're doing is ramming the whims of the powerful down the powerless's throats.
It's not the right's jimmeying the locks that I object to. It's the rank hypocrisy of them hanging on the cross while they're doing it.
Not the point. Liberals understand that the "Magnificence of the Law" is just another ping pong ball in the political game of pressure advocacy, because we almost always lose. It's frauds like Scalia that fake the "distinerested jurist" drag act when all they're doing is ramming the whims of the powerful down the powerless's throats.
It's not the right's jimmeying the locks that I object to. It's the rank hypocrisy of them hanging on the cross while they're doing it.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Amusing to see all the grousing about this, but this lawsuit has come 3 years too late to save you knuckledraggers. Consider the following:
Even the most hard core, put-Reagan-on-Mt Rushmore, haven't-been-laid-in-30-years conservatives don't think Roberts (or Kennedy) would make people pay back money they've already received. Furthermore, its also entirely reasonable even if the case did go the plaintiffs way that they'd give states a year to set up their own exchanges, since open enrollment would be a mere few months after a June decision is handed down. That leaves this year and next in place, but puts the issue of millions of people getting a massive health care cost increase in states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia etc etc, right smack dab in the midde of the Presdential election year! Dem position is simple: fix the wording and millions keep insurance. The GOP's response? Yeah, who knows as they've had 6 years to craft and alternative.
Beyond that though, consider that Roberts is at heart a Corporate jurist. So, what does corporate America want, considering no company has signed onto this brief? An alternative insurance market that may one day free them of having to insure employees, or having it collapse and having to be the primary insurer until the End of Days? Small wonder Robers was silent, he's already made his mind up.
The solution to all this I read months ago but it makes sense. Roberts and Kennedy rule that plaintiffs are right, however unintentional a literal interpretation is that subsidies go only to state exchanges, HOWEVER that's an illegal coercion of states, much like their Medicare expansion ruling, so the Admin either has to offer subsidies to all or to no one. Hence the subsidies stay in place and Roberts is burned in effigy, until a week later when Kennedy hands down his Gay Marriage is Legal ruling thus causing millions of knuckledragger heads to explode due to back to back setbacks at the high court.
Amusing to see all the grousing about this, but this lawsuit has come 3 years too late to save you knuckledraggers. Consider the following:
Even the most hard core, put-Reagan-on-Mt Rushmore, haven't-been-laid-in-30-years conservatives don't think Roberts (or Kennedy) would make people pay back money they've already received. Furthermore, its also entirely reasonable even if the case did go the plaintiffs way that they'd give states a year to set up their own exchanges, since open enrollment would be a mere few months after a June decision is handed down. That leaves this year and next in place, but puts the issue of millions of people getting a massive health care cost increase in states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia etc etc, right smack dab in the midde of the Presdential election year! Dem position is simple: fix the wording and millions keep insurance. The GOP's response? Yeah, who knows as they've had 6 years to craft and alternative.
Beyond that though, consider that Roberts is at heart a Corporate jurist. So, what does corporate America want, considering no company has signed onto this brief? An alternative insurance market that may one day free them of having to insure employees, or having it collapse and having to be the primary insurer until the End of Days? Small wonder Robers was silent, he's already made his mind up.
The solution to all this I read months ago but it makes sense. Roberts and Kennedy rule that plaintiffs are right, however unintentional a literal interpretation is that subsidies go only to state exchanges, HOWEVER that's an illegal coercion of states, much like their Medicare expansion ruling, so the Admin either has to offer subsidies to all or to no one. Hence the subsidies stay in place and Roberts is burned in effigy, until a week later when Kennedy hands down his Gay Marriage is Legal ruling thus causing millions of knuckledragger heads to explode due to back to back setbacks at the high court.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
At the end of the day, a GOP appointee has one job: further the interests of the 1%. In this case there's a huge opportunity for private insurance and medical providers to rape taxpayers, so they'll back that. That's why Heritage designed Obamacare in the first place. This is about shoveling public money to wealthy shareholders, nothing more.
At the end of the day, a GOP appointee has one job: further the interests of the 1%. In this case there's a huge opportunity for private insurance and medical providers to rape taxpayers, so they'll back that. That's why Heritage designed Obamacare in the first place. This is about shoveling public money to wealthy shareholders, nothing more.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Oh have a few beers and stop whining already. Obamacare has been a smashing success from both an enrollment standpoint and in bringing down the costs of healthcare which were expected to skyrocket. Sometimes its okay to bank a victory Kep.
Oh have a few beers and stop whining already. Obamacare has been a smashing success from both an enrollment standpoint and in bringing down the costs of healthcare which were expected to skyrocket. Sometimes its okay to bank a victory Kep.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Oops. Just accidentally happened to state that the costs came down instead of the rate of increase coming down, right? Just an innocent mistake, I'm sure.Oh have a few beers and stop whining already. Obamacare has been a smashing success from both an enrollment standpoint and in bringing down the costs of healthcare which were expected to skyrocket. Sometimes its okay to bank a victory Kep.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Don't get me wrong. This was a huge milestone on the way to single payer. We will fight and win that battle in about 16 years. I am just explaining to the El Herpa Derpadassan why Roberts and Kennedy are going to commit the unpardonable sin of backing TEH SOCIALISM!!11!
This is a public service for people who have not figured out what the Republican party's function is. I'm pretty sure you know what time it is.
Oh have a few beers and stop whining already. Obamacare has been a smashing success from both an enrollment standpoint and in bringing down the costs of healthcare which were expected to skyrocket. Sometimes its okay to bank a victory Kep.
Don't get me wrong. This was a huge milestone on the way to single payer. We will fight and win that battle in about 16 years. I am just explaining to the El Herpa Derpadassan why Roberts and Kennedy are going to commit the unpardonable sin of backing TEH SOCIALISM!!11!
This is a public service for people who have not figured out what the Republican party's function is. I'm pretty sure you know what time it is.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Did you hear that on Fox News or did you concoct that particularly meaningless rant all on your own?
I used to think the worst modern day SCOTUS opinion was Kelo v. New London. Citizen's United blew past that one and is closing in on Millard v. Filburn for worst non-race case of all time. (Plessy likely has a lock on all time worst decision ever, with the Japanese internment camp case a close second)
The millions of aborted children may think Roe is the worst decision of all time. Sure legislation may have accomplished the same purpose, But that would have held legislatures accountable for their actions m
- Status