Happy SCOTUS Week!!

[EasyEd]

Jun 28, 2012 21:31:13 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Jun 28, 2012 18:52:25 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Judge Roberts' nomination was predicated on the belief he would adhere to the views of conservative thought in his judgements and the Senate voted him in believing this. Had he voiced any observations during his hearings that led Senators to believe he could expand the definition of taxes in this way he would not have been nominated nor confirmed. He deceived us and so I have great disdain for him. We now have another Souder.

His arguments in this case are so convoluted re the Commerce Clause and taxes I conclude he had an answer looking for a rationale. This precedent gives the federal government the go-ahead to impose anything on the populace and tell us if we don't comply we must pay a penalty/tax. There is no limit. It's a sad day for the United States.

Man, you are incredible. His arguments regarding the commerce clause are "convulted?" Really?

Admit it, you're just Editeded they didn't toss the whole thing. There's nothing rationale behind your disdain.

Your opinion. I disagree.

[kchoya]

Jun 29, 2012 15:28:57 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Jun 28, 2012 21:31:13 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Man, you are incredible. His arguments regarding the commerce clause are "convulted?" Really?

Admit it, you're just Editeded they didn't toss the whole thing. There's nothing rationale behind your disdain.

Your opinion. I disagree.

What's convoluted about his commerce clause analysis?

[Elvado]

John Roberts-Evil Genius?

Lures the liberals to his tax position which renders it subject to repeal via reconciliation while scuttling the power grab available via Commerce.

For kicks he tells electorate to fix it at the ballot box.

Brilliant.

[rosslynhoya]

Jun 29, 2012 18:20:29 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Brilliant.

If the only thing Roberts was trying to do was screw the POTUS, then I think it would have been much more effective to take away his only quasi-accomplishment of the last 42 months.

So it's either partial brilliance or there's more to his calculation than simply the result of November 6, 2012.

[Elvado]

The more is closing down the expansion of federal power via the Commerce Clause. As a bonus, he muted the welping of those who are still bitter over Bush v. Gore. He really is smart

[EasyEd]

Does anyone really believe this ruling puts a limit on expansion of the federal government thru the commerce clause? The Congress will just ignore it and hope to insert another left-leaning justice and say "to hell with this ruling". Or Emperor Obama will simply do so on his own.

[Elvado]

We need only worry about dear leader for another 6 months and 20 days

[hoyaLS05]

Jun 30, 2012 9:41:02 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

The Congress will just ignore it and hope to insert another left-leaning justice and say "to hell with this ruling".

Of course the left will hope to install another left-leaning justice -- though I don't think Justices Scalia or Kennedy have any plans to retire so long as the left would get to pick their successor -- and say to hell with this ruling. THIS IS WHAT WE DO. If things were reversed, the right would do the EXACT SAME THING. Have you heard of Samuel Alito? Remember when the house tried to legislate around Roe v. Wade?

You don't have to like it. Go write a check to Mitt Romney if you don't want it to happen. But don't act like the left is unique in trying to put like-minded individuals on the court so as to bolster their causes. That is our system -- always has been, always will be. The right does the exact same thing -- and WILL do the exact same thing next term when it guts the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action, programs that would survive had the court not shifted right.

I'll vote for Obama in the hopes that the court at least maintains its current L-R composition, but if he loses and Romney replaces RBG with Brett Kavanaugh, I'm not going to act like the right has done something sinister.

[Problem of Dog]

Also, this comparison by Ed of Roberts to Souter could be one of the most ridiculous things written in this thread full of ridiculous things that Ed has said. Have you read many of Roberts' decisions? Or any of them?

[Problem of Dog]

Also, another view re: the commerce clause "silver lining" for conservatives by Mark Levin:

This may seem a little technical, but it is not a minor matter. A number of politicians and commentators are claiming that the Supreme Court in the Obamacare case “limited” the reach of the commerce clause, i.e., five justices held that individuals cannot be mandated to buy insurance under the commerce clause. Actually, the five justices did not limit anything. They simply did not accept the Obama administration’s ridiculous argument that inactivity is commerce. The status quo stands because Obamacare was upheld under the tax provisions. However, the bigger point is this — when a court issues an opinion, it is said to be the “Opinion of the Court.” The Opinion of the Court is the controlling precedent. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion of the Court for Parts I (background on the Obamacare law), II (the Anti-Injunction Act is not a bar to the lawsuit proceeding and being decided) and III-C (Obamacare is valid under the tax power).

But respecting Part III- A, the commerce clause and necessary and proper section, the decision notes that Roberts is writing for himself, not for a majority. Furthermore, the Dissent is labeled as: “Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, dissenting.” It is not labeled as “dissenting in the judgment, concurring in part” or some permutation.

You cannot say it was the “opinion of the court” that the mandate violated the commerce clause. You have to cobble together sections where Roberts is writing for himself and the dissent (which did not formally join with Roberts), is writing for itself.

In fact, Justice Thomas, in his separate dissenting opinion, wrote:

“The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE cor­rectly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

Notably, this does not explicitly state that the dissenters joined with the Chief’s opinion respecting the commerce clause. If five justices had intended for their view of the commerce clause to be controlling as the majority view of the court, they would have said so by joining or concurring in each others’ parts. They didn’t. There was no formal majority on the commerce clause issue. Should this matter come before a court again, it is not settled as a matter of precedent and no doubt the litigants will still be fighting over it.

[EasyEd]

Jun 30, 2012 11:03:48 GMT -5 hoyaLS05 said:

Jun 30, 2012 9:41:02 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

The Congress will just ignore it and hope to insert another left-leaning justice and say "to hell with this ruling".

Of course the left will hope to install another left-leaning justice -- though I don't think Justices Scalia or Kennedy have any plans to retire so long as the left would get to pick their successor -- and say to hell with this ruling. THIS IS WHAT WE DO. If things were reversed, the right would do the EXACT SAME THING. Have you heard of Samuel Alito? Remember when the house tried to legislate around Roe v. Wade?

You don't have to like it. Go write a check to Mitt Romney if you don't want it to happen. But don't act like the left is unique in trying to put like-minded individuals on the court so as to bolster their causes. That is our system -- always has been, always will be. The right does the exact same thing -- and WILL do the exact same thing next term when it guts the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action, programs that would survive had the court not shifted right.

I'll vote for Obama in the hopes that the court at least maintains its current L-R composition, but if he loses and Romney replaces RBG with Brett Kavanaugh, I'm not going to act like the right has done something sinister.

I don't disagree with you that the right would do the same thing re the Supreme Court. My point is that no matter the interpretation of what it says about the Commerce Clause, the current administration will, first, ignore it and do things on its on and, second, hope to appoint left leaning judges to make sure it doesn't constain them. I don't think the right would ignore Supreme Court decisions nor fail to enforce laws nor issue executive orders contrary to the law.

[SSHoya]

I tend to avoid these "political" discussions but in fairness, G.W. Bush made extensive use of signing statements to indicate th:

www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm

However, other signing statements may challenge Congress's authority to act or assert that that the president will not enforce the law as written. This type of signing statement is often called a "constitutional" signing statement: a president will object to a provision of law by citing a provision of the Constitution, or by citing a Supreme Court ruling interpreting the Constitution, or by bare assertion (without citation to authority) that the law offends the Constitution or invades the power of the Executive. Or the president may announce that he will interpret the law to avoid constitutional difficulties that he perceives.

[HoyaNyr320]

This is how I imagine the judicial conference on this vote went with Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts, and Scalia:



Of course Roberts had a better reason to side with the left-leaning Justices in this case than anonymity, but you get the idea.

[Boz]

Just a final note on our little side conversation in this thread:

....ummm, yeah. I think I'm done with The Newsroom.

Set aside the ridiculously one-sided political bludgeoning (I mean I expected that from Sorkin, but geez! At least The West Wing had Ainsley Hayes!)

Disregarding politics, I think this review outlines many of the reasons why the show is nigh unwatchable after only four episodes.

www.avclub.com/articles/ill-try-to-fix-you,82397/

Also, I like none of these characters. Not one bit. For people who are supposed to be so clever and smarter than the rest of us, they're all complete idiots.