Skip to comments.Justice Kennedy: ‘In Our View, The Entire Act Before Us Is Invalid In Its Entirety’
Posted on 06/28/2012 10:36:52 AM PDT by Hunton Peck
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, in commenting on the dissent in the Obamacare case said, In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety. He made his remark inside the Court on Thursday.
In the written dissent, it states, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent.
President Barack Obamas signature legislation the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- including the controversial individual mandate requiring that virtually all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty, was ruled constitutional by the U.S Supreme Court (5-4) on Thursday.
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four liberals on the court while the three conservatives and swing-vote Kennedy dissented.
Justices John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer agreed that the penalty Americans will face if they do not abide by the mandate is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing powers. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy dissented.
The dissenting opinion reads, In our view, both these central provisions of the Act -- the Individual Mandate and Medicaid Expansion -- are invalid.
The dissenting justices further said, What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.
Or threatened. I don't put anything past this administration full of rank thugs.
Political threats are perfectly legal and may have turned Roberts, much to his disgrace. Threats against his life are illegal, unless, of course, such threats come from the NBPP.
...because that’s how it’s been done for the past 200+ years.
Tentmaker made a perfectly correct statement on another thread:
Yes. Roberts ruling is correct. It says, the govt cannot do whatever it wants under the commerce clause (YAY!). And he says Congress is granted the right to tax under the Constitution (correct). He further points out that is not the job of the Supreme Court “to save the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
Roberts did his job by upholding the Constitution.
Now, it’s time for us to do our job by voting out all the idiots who created this insane tax and then repealing it.
His two ADOPTED children are from Ireland VIA LATIN AMERICA, and it was brought up at his hearing.....believe me Obama’s detectives KNOW what’s in those ADOPTION RECORDS and is BLACKMAILING him.
ALL taxes must originate in the House. This was ad nauseum, repeatedly held as NOT A TAX. roberts, the black robed thug, just “deemed” it a tax, pulling it right out his arse, and then put his corrupt fingerprints all over HIS activist BS!
May he rot in HELL!
I too think something along the lines of that. Someone got to Roberts and threatened him to vote this way.
“Im not saying she is a bad choice but, the media has made Sarah poison in this country.”
The FagMedia will do the exact same to any appealing, dynamic conservative, in DIRECT proportion to their ability to mobilize long dormat Americanism.
We could always pick a useless milquetoast and avoid doing battle with the propagandizing Commies.
I think people are overthinking this. I'm thinking that what turned Roberts is nothing more difficult than lib threats to see "his" court trashed in the history books for the rest of eternity.
I think it's a legacy issue.
My abject apologies to Justice Kennedy. I had many times asserted that I did not think he had the wits or the courage to strike down ObamaCare. I was wrong.
On the other hand, I was wrong about Roberts who clearly caved to the leftwing demonization effort. He clearly valued not making ‘his’ Court political and thought the way out of that was to do the leftists’ bidding. I didn’t think he was that spineless. What a craven nonentity he’s turned out to be. Thanks again, GWB.
I think you’re right. He was more concerned about how liberal historians would view his court and his DC social standing than to do what needed to be done.
That’s patently ridiculous.
I don’t care if he is being blackmailed. He just shat all over our liberty. I hope he rots in hell like all traitors.
I could buy that because progressive academics write history.