Skip to comments.Affordable Care Act SCOTUS Decision--Live Thread
Posted on 06/28/2012 4:56:21 AM PDT by John W
click here to read article
no, it will be the last opinion starting at 10am. Probably not until 1015 or 1030 EDT.
Kagan yes because she does not like this country. The wise latino don’t know.
If you believe that, then the individual mandate will be upheld. From Diana West:
"I find it difficult to regard the Supreme Court decision on Arizona immigration law as just another controversial or disappointing highest court decision. There is something almost post-apocolyptic and certainly pre-totalitarian when, to invoke Justice Scalia's dissent, the Court has ruled that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing it. Yes, as Scalia put it, it "boggles the mind."
"It also conjures up truly alarming comparisons with "justice" as meted out by kangaroo courts, show trials and other horrors of totalitarian dictatorships. We understand such criminal acts of going through the motions as sham procedures that have no intention of upholding the rule of law, but rather go forward to entrench an ideology or regime or, usually, both. It is shocking, therefore, to see even a pale reflection of such things in this ruling, the perfect endpiece to President Obama's recent Rose Garden Amnesty. Maybe it's the context of lawlessness and abdication of responsibility we live amid.... In these lawless and irresponsible times, Arizona's immigration law sets a dangerous precedent, demonstrating how both to re-establish the rule of law and take responsibility."
"Is that why, circa 2012, it had to be struck down?
"In April 2010 I wrote Arizona and its immigration law, and, looking back, I realize now I should have known the law was doomed. Why?"
"Arizona suddenly poses an unexpected threat to the status quo of permissible lawlessness, the illegal demographic transformation of this country into a linguistic and cultural extension of Latin America. This out-of-control movement has been tolerated if not facilitated by our political leadership for several decades under the dangerous influence of what we know as multiculturalism, the school of thought that has widely delegitimized U.S. identity altogether. Maybe more than anything else, Arizona's law restores a civic sense that there exists such an identity, and it is, and should be, legally protected. Thus, the multiculti rage."
"Don't let the robes, the perfect spelling, the orderliness fool you: The Supremes' ruling only makes this rage officially the law of the land."
The AZ ruling has destroyed the concept of federalism and made the states administrative units of the central government. Today's decision will add to that precedent.
Pins and needles bookmark
If I were writing an editorial tomorrow and this law stands, it would begin like this: Yesterday, June 28, 2012, will live in infamy, the republic was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the democrat party under the auspices of the Empire of Obama.
Yup I’m with you on this
I’m waiting to see if I continue in my field past 2014 or if I’m looking for another way to support myself....
Three decisions today
1. Stolen Valor
I agree with that, particularly with regard to the ruling on the separability clause. I'm betting the Court will rule that there is an implied separability clause in the law. This despite the obvious will of Congress to strike the clause from earlier draft versions of Obamacare.
The separability clause ruling should be a slam dunk. I'm betting it won't be and we won't be happy about the decision.
I think in KISS, keep it silly simple.
Obama failed to qualify as POTUS, everything he thought he had power to do is constitutionally illegal.
Obama care was an illegal act upon America by a fraudster.
Scotus should NOT enforce an illegal act or even support any part of it.
If they do it will further create an image of NO CONFIDENCE of the American society.
Oh well, back to my Pakman game!
Are you really such a Gloomer that you now are quoting someone who most people had never heard until this month?
I'm with you Rush ... Let's Roll!
Goldberg made me laugh with that.
I also like Casapulla's reply: "Nah, he's punching meat in a freezer to sweet 80s tunes"
and that everyone knows is a lefty blog (Scotusblog)?
That the Obamacare obamanation even became law demonstrates what a freakshow all branches of government have become. And a guy named Carney is the chief carnival barker... how do you spoof the absurd?
Noble institutions are reserved for peoples who are able to discern between the holy and the profane.
——This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself,...-—
My BIL was the dean of a Catholic law school. He told me that law students aren’t taught Natural Law theory explicitly. He seemed ambivalent about it.
I wanted to puke. If the law doesn’t rest on eternal moral principles, then it rests on nothing at all.
Odumbo’s too ignorant and arrogant to realize that option 2 can bite the hand that feeds it.
To play it safe, SCOTUS will lecture
every litigant how they overstepped.
Yep...right up there with all the crazy socialist BS, we got and are still dealing with, from FDR.
That was not a dream. It was a Nightmare!
End it, don’t mend it.
Please break out your pocket constitution....
Go to article 1, section 8..
Back when the framers were still alive, it was ruled that naturalization and immigration are linked, and therefore one and the same..
the states cannot set their own immigration policies
this power is specifically granted to the federal government
any power not granted to the federal government is reserved by the states and the people, respectively
the fed cannot interfere with local law enforcement
This was upheld
To put it bluntly, what would california do with an ability to set it’s own immigration policy?
answer, it would open the floodgates
not a “popular” or “trendy” ruling, but a constitutionally correct one
You’re killing me...........
Thanks for the thread... I have been trying to sleep, and just can’t. I hope after it’s announced I can actually get some sleep, but I doubt it. Waiting for the Holder vote as well, today. Too many “Big Doings” that really will have a HUGE impact on our country.
You’re welcome. I started it because I was getting the heebie jeebies sitting here worrying about it without a specific thread on FR on it.
I thinking the ruling goes against ObamaCare, we see the beginning of the phase out of Dear Leader by the Dims as damage control.
No matter how carefully crafted the “three” supposed speeches are-—THIS was his LEGACY and his narcisstic personality (with him, this is personal) will start to unhinge. And quickly.
The “I” word has even been mentioned (and not just on the web). The stress will just “get to him” and he will step aside—my gut feeling.
Any streaming video links?
Live blogging at SCOTUSblog.com starts at O845, and the justices take the bench at 1000 EST. With other cases to be announced, expect the Obamacare decision around 1030 and for Roberts to write the decision; assuming it goes down.
Watch how the stock market reacts too. This will have a major economic impact.
And don’t forget the correct ruling that the 2nd amendment refers to an individual right.
I agree. As much as I would like to jump on the side of angst about the Arizona ruling, it was the correct one.
Roberts will side with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. The question still remains however...............
What side will Kennedy stand with.
We will know in about 90 minutes if my fears are well-founded or not. Is a Gloomer similar to a “birther” or a “denier?” If so, I will happily accept that sobriquet.
I found this website last night after watching the “Patriot” with my husband and browing around to find more information. Thus is not advocating individual lawlessness, but advocating state governments, duly elected, to push back against federal tyranny and unconstitutional law.
http://nullifynow.net/ An important way to seek constitutional compliance is to organize widespread civil refusal to comply with unlawful official actions. A precedent for this was the 1783 Pennsylvania Council of Censors, discussed by James Madison in Federalist #48. The objective is to avoid having to launch separate legislation for every usurpation, but to provide a process by which resistance may be mobilized quickly as usurpations occur. The items below concern doing this at the state level for federal actions.
State Nullification of Federal Action: http://constitution.org/reform/us/tx/nullification/nullcomm.htm
Do we still have enough local citizens and elected representatives with courage in this country to push through something like this? I’m afraid if Obamacare is upheld, that the vise of Federal tyranny will be tightened so quickly we won’t even have time to regroup. I pray that is not the case. If a state did “nullify” a federal law, what would be the feds immediate reaction? The Feds would do something to intimidate both the “council” and the state. Again, do we have enough people with righteous anger and courage to stand up against this?
The blog is up and here is the correct link for today-—
Wailing & gnashing of teeth, book mark
You can buy that nonsense of the majority decision and the government's lawyers. Read the dissents of Scalia, Alito, and Thonmas.
AZ was not setting its own immigration policies. None of its laws conflicted with federal law. The federal government's case was a joke in terms of preemption and the Supremacy clause.
I can’t sleep either, even though I’ve been on political hiatus since Willard de facto won the nomination in April.
We have to be prepared and have an action plan. The Rat Tottenburg is already saying the people will DEMAND a replacement law because they love Obamacare so far. Really? These commies never stop.
The true value of the Arizona Law is to bring it to the attention of the entire nation that the Federal Government is not enforcing its immigration laws and not doing its primary duty...that of protecting the people of the United States of America.
Like you clearly stated, the Supreme Court was excactly right in its ruling.
I have seen alot of posters here on FR lately that either do not have knowledge of the constitution, or choose to ignore it when they do not agree with it..
I am, hoever, finding more and more people who are falling along the lines of “Strict Constitutionalist”..
You are one of those people
I find it refreshing and invigoriating to see that the numbers of people who believe in our constitution as written appears to be rising.
I have stated many times that the constitution, enforced as written, would piss off just as many conservates as it would liberals...
This ruling is just one example of many..
opinions are announced by author of the majority opinion in reverse order of seniority. This opinion will be last only if the most senior judge of those writing majority opinions today is the one who writes it.
My prediction is 8 to 1 to throw the whole thing out... the senile old bag will be the only dissention..
This thing is just soooooo blantantly unconstitutional, even the damn libs should be able to see it
I’m rooting for throwing it all out. Whatever they decide I will live with.
Depends what level of 'courage' are you talking about?
While Congress obviously has sole constitutional power to set immigration and naturalization policy, the AZ law simply mirrored federal law.
And remember, these particular laws are laws that are in fulfillment of the absolute constitutional obligation by the United States to secure the states from invasion.
To tell the state of AZ that they cannot, in the absence of federal fulfillment of its most important duties, enforce these laws is to say that they cannot defend themselves.
And the right of self-defense is God-given, unalienable, intrinsic.