Posted on 07/01/2012 7:29:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
“More intellectual masturbation.”
Agreed. It either was or was not constitutional AS WRITTEN and passed by Congress, as signed by the Potus.
Roberts is a phuque up. Arizona immigration, and then this mess.
What a load of crap, except for the C base being energized. Roberts had no reason or rationale to rewrite the statute to call the mandate a tax other than he wanted to do it. “Protect the integrity of the court??” Hogwash.
I think he was compromised. Eric Holder runs the FBI and I don't think John Roberts is free from secrets. Supreme Court justices are just as fallible as the rest of us and I believe that Obama and his Chicago minions had the goods on Roberts. If in fact this decision was extorted out of him, then Obama and company probably included an early resignation as part of the deal to bury whatever they had on him.
If Roberts resigns in September, look for HRC to be appointed to replace him. And if HRC is appointed, don't expect any fillibuster on the nomination from McConnell.
Obama and his minions play dirty. They are as corrupt as Al Capone ever dreamed of being. The only thing that adequately explains Roberts decision is that Obama and Holder had him over a barrel.
Now that it’s a tax it can be repealed.
If that is true, then Roberts should have come forward or recused himself.
Actually, now that the “penalty” has more rightly been called a tax, and taxes fall under budget and budget reconciliation bills only need a 51 vote majority in the Senate, how hard is it going to be to get total repeal passed as a budget/tax bill, rather than trying to get 66 votes to repeal it as a commerce clause penalty repeal bill?
“The vote totals are more accurately represented as an 8 to 1 vote rather than 5 to 4 vote.”
Not sure how you mean this. The dissent (the four good justices) agreed the act was not within the commerce clause. So that’s 5 on Roberts dicta re the commerce clause. The four bad justices couldn’t imagine any limit to congress powers under the commerce clause. So I count 5-4 on the commerce clause, although Robert’s reasoning was all by itself.
I know. Poor wording on my part. Just wanted to point out how he was shifting between both sides. So ultimately nobody voted “in total” with Roberts.
Ex.
4 liberals voted - AA
4 conservatives voted - BB
1 Roberts voted - AB
Agree. It’s a weird ruling.
“I think that, with time, people are going to understand just HOW important [the commerce clause part of Roberts’ opinion] this is.”
IMO, this decision will have little-to-no effect on commerce clause law.
* To begin with, Roberts’ reasoning on this issue is “dicta”. That is, it had no bearing on how the Court ruled. The entire section could have been left out and it would have made no difference in the outcome of the case. Dicta is not regarded among attorneys or judges as having any value as precedent. Thus, it is NOT “stare decisis”—rather its value is persuasive only. Thus, if someday, we get a conservative majority on the Court in the future, it will be followed as persuasive. If there is a left majority on the Court, it will not. That is pretty much where things stood before the decision.
* Most people have not noticed that the Court’s decision, written by Roberts, was a one-man show on this issue. That is, the four left-wing judges (who joined him in the opinion) expressly excepted their agreement with the commerce clause section. So not only is Robert’s decision dicta on the commerce clause, it is Roberts talking to himself.
People searching for a silver lining in Roberts’ opinion should be looking at the discussion of the Spending Power in the Medicaid section of the case. It is actually a holding (as opposed to dicta) and held a clear majority of the Court.
“Last week’s decisions pushed me over the edge. I now am in favor of full-on secession. I want out of this sick country.”
I’m not there yet, but, man, I’m close. And secession might be easier this time than last. But there are less radical courses—impeachment of politicians as well as judges, repeal of Court decisions and laws, and of course election of Constitutional conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.