I don’t know, I’m not hoping for much...the Arizona decision and the Election ruling last year really ticked me off.
Roberts is a huge disappointment.
Remember that Bush I gave us Souter and Bush II gave us Roberts. Like father, like son.
Roberts is a constitutionalist, not a conservative..
The arizona ruling was 100% correct...
The ruling on corporate campaign contributions was 100% correct...
Roberts is a far cry from dissappointing, he will side with the constitution, regardless of what is “popular” or “trendy”...
I agree, after the last two decisions, I don’t hold much hope for a complete removal of this mistake by design legislation. The result is the US loses with anything less than complete removal of it.
By writing the “law” as they did, they leave future administrations powerless to do much given the gridlock in the country...that is why there are so many pages in it.
At best I think the mandate could go but even so, his excellency will executive order anything he wishes unless there is some strong language in a dissent against doing so. They would be wise to include such language in the majority, kind of a preinjunction, if the mandate goes given how His Excellency handled the Az decision and his pension to rule by fiat. That will not happen though.
At the oral hearing stage, I felt the mandate goes something like 6 to 3 with Ginsburg surprisingly voting for it to go along with the usual 5. Given she is writing the dissent, not so sure about that now either. So, at best the mandate goes 5-4 and the rest stays but I am not holding my breath on that.
If the law stands, that will mean greater resolve for a hair on fire movement to get rid of all the dems in Nov. Also, it means those dems leaning to vote to contempt Holder will probably back off as they will see His Excellency as having aleg up in the coming election and they know how vindictive the egomaniac is.
You nailed it, Alice-in-Bubbaland.
You nibbled the correct cookie.