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
IIRC, the HHS gets to write whatever she/they want now and call it law.
We now have qadis and morality imams. Fatwas at 5.
Believe me...I did NOT want this dream to be “reality”...but it just seemed so REAL-—that, “I had a feeling”... and it “turns out to be right”. as does the “aftermath” of the talk of “this will finish Obama off” and such...that was ALSO in the dream...
” If I understand it..What they held was that they could not punish states by withholding present funding for Medicaid.”
Is that (the “punishment””) a part of the law? Or was it a completely separate issue
“I looked at your posting history and see that you were totally silent at FR in the last 2 months so you didnt stick your neck out on this at all.”
a) I’ve had things more important going on in my life than coming on to Free Republic to speculate about what the Supreme Court would decide.
b) Why should I make a prediction and “stick my neck out” when I had NO IDEA how they would rule? They ruled. Now I’m here to voice my opinion about it and read other people’s opinions.
c) Pretending that the frequency with which a person expresses his opinion has anything at all to do with the validity of his opinion is, at best, ignorant, and at wost, dishonest, offensive and evil.
“Why did only the kook get this one right?”
In fact, numerous Democrats “got this right” and predicted Roberts would vote this way. For much simpler reasons such as that he believed it to be the correct decision.
In my opinion, the only people who REALLY got it right were those who said, “We don’t know what will happen, because we don’t know what is going on inside those nine heads.” Not entirely true, because roughly six of the judges are 100% predictable. Lots of people, you included, guessed right. Lots of people, you not included, guessed wrong. Guessing right doesn’t prove your reasoning to be right.
And I have far more respect for the people who said “I think that most likely (x) will be the outcome because I think that Judges (y and z) believe (a and b)” as opposed to anyone who said “I know that (x) will be the outcome because I know for a fact that Judge (y) is being coerced by a conspiracy involving evil villain (z) and those dastardly ideological organizations (a and b).”
In such cases, it is irrelevant who ends up correctly guessing the outcome. One is making a reasonable guess, whereas the other is discarding reason in favor of fanciful speculation.
The Democrats’ inability for over 3 years to submit a budget notwithstanding, all spending still starts in the House. The law is legal only as a tax. This is why the Democrats went through all their fraudulent gyrations to not portray it as a tax. Taxes need to be allocated first through the House. This is an astronomical tax increase that goes directly to the taxpayer. This mess of using interstate Commerce was intended to make the tax one step removed from a direct tax by making the insurance companies the tax collectors and forcing you to buy insurance.
The game is changed. The key is that the House of Representatives has nowhere to hide. They have to present the cost to we the taxpayers and justify it. Do we have the will to kill this? The curtain is pulled back and now we have to decide.
He said he would repeal it.
I think that means he will repeal it.
No, I heard NUMEROUS people, mostly Democrats correctly predict this outcome, with FAR SIMPLER explanations than you.
And by the way, science uses probability, not predictions. You are committing the common fallacy of mistaking an assertion about the likelihood of an event occurring to be a prediction as to what will occur.
“Its sort of like the simple explanation for a man eating another mans face being that he just got hungry.”
Are you serious?
99.9999% of people DON’T eat someone’s face when they are hungry. So this is a RIDICULOUSLY NON-SIMPLE explanation. “Simple” precludes HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.
El Rushbo did loosen up a little today when he said that he was warned long ago by a good source that he shouldn't consider Justice Kennedy as being the future weak leak on the Supremes, but to keep an alert eye on the so-called conservative Roberts.
Rush thinks Roberts is trying to carve out a "legacy" for himself....i.e., people think of the "Warren Court" and the "Rehnquist Court"....and he'd like to leave a "Roberts Court" to history.
Rush may be correct on this, although I think there's something more to it than that rather simplistic analysis. I think Rush would privately agree with my take, also.
You’re speculating about me. All I noted was that since you haven’t posted here in the last 2 months I didn’t see you stick your neck out on this. Stop assigning arguments to me that I never made.
I also never said that I definitely knew what was going to happen. I said that I suspected that Roberts was compromised because of x, y, and z and that I feared he would uphold Obamacare because he was told he had to. I loudly hoped that I was mistaken.
The guy upheld Obamacare using unlimited-government arguments that even Justice Kennedy saw past. And he looked and acted absolutely miserable when he did it.
Ya know, I could hold Ginsburg hostage and then as a solid conservative predict that she would vote to overturn Roe v Wade just because she’s such a reasonable person and would make the right decision. That wouldn’t be fishy at all. No, not at all. And if Ginsburg voted to overturn Roe v Wade after all these years of being a rabidly liberal pro-choicer, well... Occam’s Razor would say it was because she just thought it was the right thing to do...
The DEMS were predicting that Roberts - who was this evil right-wing creature - would miraculously see the light on this issue alone, even though Kennedy wouldn’t even see it that way? That, by itself, would make me question their reasoning. Maybe you can show me where they predicted these things so I can see what kind of reasons they used. For instance, when has Roberts ruled that Congress could make any purchasing demands it wanted on civilians and then punish people for not doing it, as long as the fine was rationalized to be a “tax”? Did they bring up Roberts’ response to that argument when the government lawyer made it in the hearing? Did Roberts respond positively to that line of argument? What is their reasoning?
In fact, what is YOUR reasoning? What leads you to believe that Roberts was simply convinced by the sheer brilliance of the Obama regime’s arguments? I thought there were a lot of liberals who were ready to cream the lawyer because he was so pathetic and it was so obvious to everybody that his arguments were worthless. If even the liberal news people were shaking their heads at how pathetic it was, it would take a bit to show me that Roberts was overwhelmed by the brilliance of the arguments made.
How many judges issue ex parte invitations to the defendant of a case they considered that very day? And how many announce that ex parte invitation to the national press so that it is reported on the same day that people are waiting to hear what the judge ruled on the defendant’s case?
Especially in something really important to a lot of people. Say, for instance, the judge for OJ Simpson inviting him over for cookies and coffee, and a tour of the courthouse right after the trial maybe - and the judge make sure that the invitation gets announced to the press so it’s reported nationwide. You know, that kind of thing. How often is that done?
I’d like to see some stats on that, sir - as well as some potential reasons for the rates at which we see this phenomenon.
Not only that, it is aimed at those too poor to buy health insurance!
Which is probably what happened..
You’re absolutely right, Old Sarge.
We could re-write the list of offenses in the Declaration of Independence, updated to Obama abd 2009-2012.
All three branches of the Federal government have failed us—the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial.
It is time for a reset.
November 6th will be the last chance for a peaceful reset America will have.
I believe that. But I don’t believe all the spin on FR that this was a bad thing that happened to conservatives today. In the coming days and weeks, I think some FReepers will recant their position today that Roberts is a traitor to the cause.
Yes, the timing of this could not be better for the push to kill this monstrosity. I was watching Stuart Varney last night and he was talking about why Romney is smart to stay focused on the economy. Growth is about 1 1/5%, the unemployment figures are due out next week. Varney is saying that there is expectation that unemployment claims will be increasing and the unemployment rate will likely go up over 8.2%.
Would you want to be a liberal pushing hard for this Obamacare monstrosity in light of this? If we as conservatives can’t take this and destroy the Left in light of the overall condition of the economy and our nation as a whole, maybe we deserve to go down. Obama can crow all he wants over his ‘victory’. He has to deal with the 50% who pay the income tax while 50% pay none. We aren’t dead yet and the stage is set for us to take it back.
We have to look at all angles of this before we determine that Roberts killed us. In truth, he got all the liberal justices to agree that the premise of the law under Commerce is unconstitutional. We have to do the rest.
Roberts knows he must not appear pleased with the ruling. That explains the comment “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
He knows that he is in a role and must play the part.
Was talking with an extremely intelligent conservative friend today and while she hasn't decided how she's going to vote in November, she said she finds the hysteria with regard to Obama very "troubling," as it was hysteria against Bush and Republicans in general that gave us Obama, and it seems to her as if it's the same thing in reverse to vote for Romney.
I'd told her that for the first time since 1976, when I cast my first vote ever for Gerald Ford (and have voted EVERY election since), for the first time ever, I won't be voting straight Republican ticket.
I'll be voting third party at the top of the ticket because I know that there's no such thing as voting "against" a candiate. You can only vote FOR something ever, even if it's FOR thumbs-down on a ballot proposition. There is no vote "against," only FOR. So in the presidential, I will be voting FOR a plurality, the only hope we have of helping conservatives in their fight against whichever statist wins.
“Let me think. A GOP sweep in November or upholding the Constitution for our children and grandchildren.”
How can we have the latter without the former?
I just read the article at http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/Did-Roberts-Give-in-to-Obama-Bullying . It says that the dissenting opinion refers to a DIFFERENT opinion as the dissenting opinion and uses the term “we”, which is typically used for the majority opinion. This suggests that Kennedy’s opinion was supposed to be the majority opinion.
The article suggests that Roberts changed his vote at the last minute - they suggest because of the media “bullying” here toward the end. They talk about the thin reasoning, which is not characteristic of Roberts - as if he had no time to come up with excuses for his decision. There is also a video at the bottom of that link; I can’t see the video but it claims that Justice Kennedy was visibly angry about the decision.
Somebody had mentioned also that the opinions are read in order of the seniority of the justice who wrote the majority opinion. I don’t know exactly how the reading of the decisions went today, but I wonder if Obamacare being last would reflect a majority opinion written by Kennedy rather than by Roberts. Were the decisions in order so that the last decision was read by the most senior (that is, longest-standing) justice? Did Kagan or Sotomayor write the majority opinion for Stolen Valor? If not, then somebody more senior than Roberts read before he did, which is out of order.