Skip to comments.The New Art of Fence Sitting - The Supreme Court's Ambiguity
Posted on 06/25/2013 9:07:54 AM PDT by fwdude
Am I the only one who has noticed an increasing penchant for the Supreme Court to return non-answers to critical issues?
The latest "Voter Rights" decision leaves the Federal Government in charge of determining when minority rights are violated, but now must be done procedurally, not discriminatorily toward us "raaaaaacist" states.
Honestly, how hard is it to actually rely on the Constitution and principles of clear thinking to come up with the fact that a state has decided to reserve marriage to only a man and a woman? Either they can or they can't. But who wants to bet that this Court will somehow equivocate and "split the baby" in an attempt to make both sides happy?
Unpleasant decisions would lead to a severe Constitutional crisis. I think the court has decided to punt all the tough cases.
In other words, cowards.
Like denying standing to any eligibility case.
There’s nothing wrong with the idea of a court being reluctant to legislate from the bench.
So, are you saying that Roberts was right about Obamacare?
You think the court is "legislating from the bench" when it says such a thing? The court is stepping outside it's proper bounds when it does this?
SCOTUS mirrors our society, which is split 50-50 between patriots and parasites. This situation cannot, of course, endure.
States should defy any federal rulings that the SCOUTS punts back to lower courts....when it deals with state laws that protect the rights of states residents that the feds refuse to do so
Let the Feds try to enforce lower Fed court rulings
So, are you saying Roberts sat on the fence?
My point is that they ARE legislating from the bench - with half-measures. They go just enough into legislating for one side to try to "even out" the particulars between sides. Thoroughly unconstitutional.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
And my point is, you are bitching . . . and would only bitch louder when things don’t completely your way. (And I’m not saying that to be antagonistic).
"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."
So, it's sort of constitutional and sort of unconstitutional and let's have it both ways and have a spending bill originate in the Senate and we'll call it a tax, and we'll let the feds control a huge part of the economy because that's what the founders would want.
I call it having it both ways. And I think the court is cowardly to do so.
I think Roberts is sitting on something other than a fence, but that's another issue.
The point is that he DID "legislate" in the Obamacare decision.
Sometimes “bitching” is well warranted.
Again, I contend that many of these decisions are clear cut, but that the court intentionally obscures the obvious to appear conciliatory to one side. We have seldom recently seen the court either completely repudiate or uphold a lawsuit of late. It seems to me that they used to.
Reads like a typical opinion to me. Your selection, that is. I didn’t read the opinion (my fault), and would have to read the dissents to form my own.
The SCOTUS acts like almost every other court, their decisions create work for the pimps of the legal industry: namely, LAWYERS!
My reading of Roberts opinion on Obamacare, and many of these other decisions, is that they’re basically saying that Americans get the government they deserve.
IOW the SCOTUS is no longer going to act as a firewall to shield politicians, and voters, from the consequences of the political decisions they make.
Now I disagree with Roberts on Obamacare. Strongly disagree. But I can’t deny that he has a point. We the People brought Obamacare upon ourselves by putting/allowing Obama and the Dems into power. Maybe it will take some strong medicine (reaping what we sow) to get us back on the right track.
They challenged Lord Obama with the Citizens United decision so he turned the intimidation machine loose on them.
Just like the Tea Party challenged Lord Obama in the midterms, so he turned the intimidation machine loose on them.
Then pray tell what is the value of the court?
If the voters elect legislators and the legislators do what they want and there is no government body that acts as any sort of check on that legislation ...
Then why have the court?
"the government they deserve" -- that just means the USA is a democracy and we have mob rule.
Not supposed to be that way.
Do you remember the Pony Tailed Guy from the 1992 Richmond Presidential Debate? Who referred to the Government as “our” parent and the President as the “Father”?
Sometimes I think that a lot of Conservatives have his same opinion. It’s just that the Supreme Court is the parent we expect to protect us.
Here’s the deal: dumb idea to think that way. The Court, and judiciary n general, is as Conservative as it’s ever going to be. I expect that Ruthie will retire during Obamas term, so no change. I expect that Kennedy will retire during the first term of the next President, who will be a Democrat. I give Scalia another 10 years tops, with an excellent chance he’ll leave the Court feet first. What are the chances that a GOP President will be elected before that happens?
IOW, things are going to get worse, a LOT worse, from here on out.
The Obamacare decision was a wakeup call that Conservatives have failed to answer.
The SCOTUS has become as corrupted as the rest of the US govt. The whole fish is rotten.
It won’t endure. Due to the new Democrat Party Perpetual Rule Act, aka Amnesty, the Dems will eventually get that 5th vote on the court, and then it will be all over for the rule of law and the notion that there is a Constitution in this country. I am surprised that Holder doesn’t just say that he will ignore this 5-4 ruling and wait for the next appointment to fix the court’s error.
Isn't there a case wending its way through the process on that? That one will be interesting. Not pinning my hopes on it, mind you.