No Bible.
A picture that had not been there before and was moved again later. More than once.
A few weeks after Obama took office
Sometime before Obama
Posted on 06/28/2012 4:03:53 PM PDT by Aquamarine
There is an odd anomaly found in Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in today’s Obamacare decision.
When referencing the opinion of Justice Ginsburg—who wrote the opinion on behalf of herself and the remaining three liberals on the Court—Scalia refers to Ginsburg’s opinion as the ‘dissent’. This raises the specter that, at the time Scalia wrote his opinion, Justice Ginsburg may have actually been in the minority rather than a part of the ultimate majority which upheld the law.
While Justice Scalia may well have been referring to Ginsburg’s dissent to the Commerce Clause argument that was carried by a majority of the Court and found that the ACA was not constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause, it could also indicate that Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote—for reasons that we may never know—at the last moment and that Scalia failed to make the correction in his own opinion when referring to Ginsburg’s writing.
This from “The Volokh Conspiracy” :
“Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Roberts effectively gave to Federal government the power to tax us for absolutely anything or nothing at all. It is all at their discretion. It does not matter if the next legislature overturns the law itself. The supreme court ruled that unlimited taxation for any reason or purpose was okay as long the federal government voted for it.
The only way around that is set limits on what the government can tax us for etc. It will most likely require a constitutional convention.
it seems over the years, the average citizen has gotten trampled...
yet, don't read the rights to an illegal?....then all of a sudden their all constitutional....
the 3 branches of govt was supposed to prevent tyranny of one branch...but when they all work in collusion, what do you do?
I harken back to the Senate....we need it back...and we have to learn to stop stomping our feet and putting on a pouty face when we don't get the ideal candidate....we have Frankin in the Senate because of the doofuses that voted constitutional party, with my apologies to regular doofuses...
Why don't you get this...he voted AGAINST Scalia and WITH Kagan.
We impeach him. .
Keep up the good work, the left is counting on negative idiots like yourself.
So shortsighted.
The point is he didn’t. We say we don’t want activist judges, but you do. He interpreted the law based on their argument about it being a tax. He did his job now he is telling us to do ours.
So you’re saying that Scalia was wrong on this?
Ginsberg said that those who know, don’t talk and those who talk, don’t know. We should have seen this coming.
You are correct, once again.
I am saying it was a more pure interpretation based on the argument presented to them. Make up your mind, you want an activist court or not. It now can be dealt with where it should be dealt with.. IN CONGRESS.
If the 30-something folks are paying attention, ObamaCareTax will be more expensive than “free” contraceptives ... Where is Ms Fluke?
I believe he did a last minute Hamlet, torn between what he knew to be legally correct and what he thought he needed to do to save the Court from leftist mau-mauing. In the end, he chose wrongly.
It was already dealt with in Congress, the SCOTUS validated it....it’s over!
That's why he viewed it as not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.
I N S A N I T Y
There a lot more to this story than what we know today. Read this first sentence carefully>
&&Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill.
...
uh.. No it’s not.
My thoughts exactly. Roberts may have been shown the “Chicago” Way!!!!
Just the opposite, Roberts is the one being activist because it being a tax was not in the original argument. SCOTUS read into what it was to claim it was a tax and therefore justified. The administration in its case argued it was a fine, not a tax.
In filings before the Supreme Court, White House lawyers have adopted two seemingly contradictory stances, The Hill reported last year: the administration wants an immediate ruling, so it argues that the penalty shouldn't be considered a tax because federal law prescribes courts from blocking taxes before they go into effect.
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.