Did Roberts Change His Mind ?

[Truthmatters]

see what I mean they are fucking insane

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe he should quit, maybe he no longer has the stomach to be a right wing jerk.

Maybe Dick Cheney could take him and Ginsburg duck hunting !

It is not unusual for judges to fail to meet partisan expectations after they have occupied the position for a while.

That's only true of Conservative justices. There is no pressure on left-wing judges.

 

[Big Fitz]

we should probably just go to a single payer plan, that way all are covered, wealthy, middle, and the poor, from birth, and it would save us all money by cutting out the middle man, the paper pusher expense. We pay nearly $8k a year for health care insurance when said and done....i'd gladly give $5k extra a year in a healthcare tax for a Medical plan such as an improved Medicare for the rest of the country younger than 65....Shoot, it would still save us $3k a year from what we are paying now...

I truly don't know if my suggestion above is the be all, said all, answer...

I'm open to hear anyone's suggestion on how we can solve the major problems we've had with health insurance costs on the individuals like Matt and me, going up 10% a year for the past 15 years...employers are contributing less and less towards the total costs plus the insurance policies have gone up. We own our home, and cars so our health Insurance costs are the biggest expense we have, besides Food.....so we still count ourselves as ''part of the Lucky ones'', but I just can't imagine how hard it must be on others with a limited income....

There's got to be something we can do, to make things better....but in a smart way....we are smart people, we like solving problems, we hit challenges head on every day of the week....we should certainly be able to face this 100 lb gorilla of a problem, and come up with a solution that's good.

The single payer/Medicare for all is indeed the best plan.

Impossible to implement, however, in the current hostile, hyper-partisan environment.

If you want to be cattle of the state, there are many nations out there interested in oppressing you. Move there. Quit trying to make this nation one of them.

 

[Jackson]

Rumors had been circulating in legal circles for weeks that Chief Justice Roberts in particular was under enormous political pressure not to be the vote that would overturn the most significant piece of social legislation passed by Congress in decades. Indeed, in April President Obama took the unusual step of issuing something of a public warning on the subject, saying that he was “confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

It is impossible for a lawyer to read even the first few pages of the dissent without coming away with the impression that this is a majority opinion that at the last moment lost its fifth vote. Its structure and tone are those of a winning coalition, not that of the losing side in the most controversial Supreme Court case in many years. But when we get to Page 13, far more conclusive evidence appears: No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.”

There is one likely explanation for this: The dissent was the majority opinion when those who voted to overturn the entire ACA signed off on sending their text to the printer. In other words, Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote at the very last possible moment.

Did John Roberts switch his vote? - Salon.com

*******************************

Enormous political pressure to not overturn ?

How in the hell does a CJ bow to political pressure. I don't give a rats ass about the "legitimacy" of the court. If Roberts caved, he should remove himself from the court. We don't need him.

The very idea that we have this sorry assed legislation because he bowed...makes me vomit.

And, I like that the article specfically points out that Obama made those public statements.

Obama...our so-called "Constitutional Scholar"/Moron-In-Chief basically would be guilty of interfering with what is supposed to be a separate branch of government.

But you libs liked that...anything for the victory...You've joined Obama in wiping your asses with the constitution for decades. You might as well have it printed on Charmin so you can make the job easier.

This is all very interesting. "Ginsberg's dissent" should have been altered to avoid this speculation. It is telling.

And it answers the question I had from the beginning. The mandate was ruled by Roberts as unconstitutional as the law was written under the Commerce Clause, but then he reached way too far and took the arguments presented in court that the penalty was not a penalty, but a "tax."

How could he do this when it was not written in the law? He was reaching and even said, "the tax may not be fair or wise", but it is constitutional. It may have been constitutional, but that is not the way the law was written.

So, I believed he reached too far, giving it a ruling of constitutionality but warning folks, it wasn't fair or wise to do so.

He caved.

 

[Big Fitz]

Rumors had been circulating in legal circles for weeks that Chief Justice Roberts in particular was under enormous political pressure not to be the vote that would overturn the most significant piece of social legislation passed by Congress in decades. Indeed, in April President Obama took the unusual step of issuing something of a public warning on the subject, saying that he was “confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

It is impossible for a lawyer to read even the first few pages of the dissent without coming away with the impression that this is a majority opinion that at the last moment lost its fifth vote. Its structure and tone are those of a winning coalition, not that of the losing side in the most controversial Supreme Court case in many years. But when we get to Page 13, far more conclusive evidence appears: No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.”

There is one likely explanation for this: The dissent was the majority opinion when those who voted to overturn the entire ACA signed off on sending their text to the printer. In other words, Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote at the very last possible moment.

Did John Roberts switch his vote? - Salon.com

*******************************

Enormous political pressure to not overturn ?

How in the hell does a CJ bow to political pressure. I don't give a rats ass about the "legitimacy" of the court. If Roberts caved, he should remove himself from the court. We don't need him.

The very idea that we have this sorry assed legislation because he bowed...makes me vomit.

And, I like that the article specfically points out that Obama made those public statements.

Obama...our so-called "Constitutional Scholar"/Moron-In-Chief basically would be guilty of interfering with what is supposed to be a separate branch of government.

But you libs liked that...anything for the victory...You've joined Obama in wiping your asses with the constitution for decades. You might as well have it printed on Charmin so you can make the job easier.

This is all very interesting. "Ginsberg's dissent" should have been altered to avoid this speculation. It is telling.

And it answers the question I had from the beginning. The mandate was ruled by Roberts as unconstitutional as the law was written under the Commerce Clause, but then he reached way too far and took the arguments presented in court that the penalty was not a penalty, but a "tax."

How could he do this when it was not written in the law? He was reaching and even said, "the tax may not be fair or wise", but it is constitutional. It may have been constitutional, but that is not the way the law was written.

So, I believed he reached too far, giving it a ruling of constitutionality but warning folks, it wasn't fair or wise to do so.

He caved.

If you were listening to Rush back when this was being argued before the supreme court a few months back, you would have heard him talk about the notion that was out there that Roberts, in an effort to protect the court's integrity he would join with the left in order to write the majority opinion himself in an effort to insert a poison pill in the language and open the law up to future challengens and legal restraint in the future while keeping this a campaign issue in which to bludgeon the left with for 2 more years till actual harm from the tax comes into play.

I was surprised at such an idea, and thats why it stuck with me. Now it seems, in a fluke he may have been correct in assessing it this way.

It's part of why I can't say he was coerced to flip instead of playing the long game for future victories by giving them a short term win, easily rolled back once harm is done.

 

[Care4all]

we should probably just go to a single payer plan, that way all are covered, wealthy, middle, and the poor, from birth, and it would save us all money by cutting out the middle man, the paper pusher expense

Can't. No money to do it. Two, it doesn't address the REAL problem: The reason health care costs are high. Can you find them? I know I can find a bunch. All of them can be reduced by simple laws that do not raise a single tax, and make health care a lot more affordable for Americans.

By adding another middleman (the payer) between you and your needed services, you do not decrease the cost, you only hide it then raise it because demand will rise till it must be rationed. Price control or rationing. Which do you want because one of the two WILL happen and fast.

well, the BIGGEST expense that could be saved is 25-30% by cutting out the Insurance Companies expense, cutting out the paper pusher middle man....that is self evident imho,

The second biggest savings we could have is by streamlining billing...i believe I read that hospitals like John Hopkins have a thousand different billing plans, (billing prices negotiated with different insurance companies and different individuals), this is cumbersome and costly.

Thirdly, I would have the AMA or whatever Medical Board appropriate, make certain that Doctors with 3-5 Major Malpractice Lawsuit losses, lose their licenses to practice....right now, it is something like 2-5% of ALL MD's account for more than 80% of all malpractice suits....this is forcing about 90% of Doctors, who have NEVER been sued, to PAY out the kazoo, for the malpractice... of the 2-5% that are the repeat offenders.
So, knowing the above, my solution would be to 'get the bad guys off the street', not limit what an injured person receives in retribution for the bad doctor's mistake.

Fourth, anything in the medical field that was invented or discovered with research monies that us tax payers, paid, should be given to us Americans at cost, with no mark up, or minimal mark up, and other countries should be paying more, since they did not fund the research. Instead we have foreign countries negotiating with PHARMA for lower drug costs than we in America pay, when in many cases we funded 50% of the research and development costs to put the drug on the market....same with medical devices and machinery...if the private industry takes our research and development tax monies, then we here, should be cut a break by them...if they want higher profits, then they should not take 'we the people's' R & D money....

We should put gym every day back in schools...i had it every day, all 12 grades of schooling...i learned how to bowl,play basket ball and hockey, play tennis, play tag football, play softball, golf, racketball, and gymnastics....I loved gym class....always learning the rules and regs of a new sport....
And spend some time educating people on food and exercise importance....not force people to drink only a 12 oz soda and not a 16 oz, but teach people why they should monitor their sugar intake, or why they would feel better if they kept active.

what are your ideas?

 

[Jackson]

Another comment from Roberts on the Health Care Act:

Roberts repeated his desire to have the court adhere to judicial modesty Thursday at the start of his health care opinion.

"We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions," he wrote.

More nuanced view of Roberts after health care law - Yahoo! News



The court does not rule if the law is sound. It is up to Congress to challenge it's provisions.

Code for: It's a bad law...change it.

 

[jillian]

Rumors had been circulating in legal circles for weeks that Chief Justice Roberts in particular was under enormous political pressure not to be the vote that would overturn the most significant piece of social legislation passed by Congress in decades. Indeed, in April President Obama took the unusual step of issuing something of a public warning on the subject, saying that he was “confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

It is impossible for a lawyer to read even the first few pages of the dissent without coming away with the impression that this is a majority opinion that at the last moment lost its fifth vote. Its structure and tone are those of a winning coalition, not that of the losing side in the most controversial Supreme Court case in many years. But when we get to Page 13, far more conclusive evidence appears: No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.”

There is one likely explanation for this: The dissent was the majority opinion when those who voted to overturn the entire ACA signed off on sending their text to the printer. In other words, Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote at the very last possible moment.

Did John Roberts switch his vote? - Salon.com

*******************************

Enormous political pressure to not overturn ?

How in the hell does a CJ bow to political pressure. I don't give a rats ass about the "legitimacy" of the court. If Roberts caved, he should remove himself from the court. We don't need him.

The very idea that we have this sorry assed legislation because he bowed...makes me vomit.

And, I like that the article specfically points out that Obama made those public statements.

Obama...our so-called "Constitutional Scholar"/Moron-In-Chief basically would be guilty of interfering with what is supposed to be a separate branch of government.

But you libs liked that...anything for the victory...You've joined Obama in wiping your asses with the constitution for decades. You might as well have it printed on Charmin so you can make the job easier.

This is all very interesting. "Ginsberg's dissent" should have been altered to avoid this speculation. It is telling.

And it answers the question I had from the beginning. The mandate was ruled by Roberts as unconstitutional as the law was written under the Commerce Clause, but then he reached way too far and took the arguments presented in court that the penalty was not a penalty, but a "tax."

How could he do this when it was not written in the law? He was reaching and even said, "the tax may not be fair or wise", but it is constitutional. It may have been constitutional, but that is not the way the law was written.

So, I believed he reached too far, giving it a ruling of constitutionality but warning folks, it wasn't fair or wise to do so.

He caved.

the justices aren't your tools.

 

[Jackson]

we should probably just go to a single payer plan, that way all are covered, wealthy, middle, and the poor, from birth, and it would save us all money by cutting out the middle man, the paper pusher expense

Can't. No money to do it. Two, it doesn't address the REAL problem: The reason health care costs are high. Can you find them? I know I can find a bunch. All of them can be reduced by simple laws that do not raise a single tax, and make health care a lot more affordable for Americans.

By adding another middleman (the payer) between you and your needed services, you do not decrease the cost, you only hide it then raise it because demand will rise till it must be rationed. Price control or rationing. Which do you want because one of the two WILL happen and fast.

well, the BIGGEST expense that could be saved is 25-30% by cutting out the Insurance Companies expense, cutting out the paper pusher middle man....that is self evident imho,

The second biggest savings we could have is by streamlining billing...i believe I read that hospitals like John Hopkins have a thousand different billing plans, (billing prices negotiated with different insurance companies and different individuals), this is cumbersome and costly.

Thirdly, I would have the AMA or whatever Medical Board appropriate, make certain that Doctors with 3-5 Major Malpractice Lawsuit losses, lose their licenses to practice....right now, it is something like 2-5% of ALL MD's account for more than 80% of all malpractice suits....this is forcing about 90% of Doctors, who have NEVER been sued, to PAY out the kazoo, for the malpractice... of the 2-5% that are the repeat offenders.
So, knowing the above, my solution would be to 'get the bad guys off the street', not limit what an injured person receives in retribution for the bad doctor's mistake.

Fourth, anything in the medical field that was invented or discovered with research monies that us tax payers, paid, should be given to us Americans at cost, with no mark up, or minimal mark up, and other countries should be paying more, since they did not fund the research. Instead we have foreign countries negotiating with PHARMA for lower drug costs than we in America pay, when in many cases we funded 50% of the research and development costs to put the drug on the market....same with medical devices and machinery...if the private industry takes our research and development tax monies, then we here, should be cut a break by them...if they want higher profits, then they should not take 'we the people's' R & D money....

We should put gym every day back in schools...i had it every day, all 12 grades of schooling...i learned how to bowl,play basket ball and hockey, play tennis, play tag football, play softball, golf, racketball, and gymnastics....I loved gym class....always learning the rules and regs of a new sport....
And spend some time educating people on food and exercise importance....not force people to drink only a 12 oz soda and not a 16 oz, but teach people why they should monitor their sugar intake, or why they would feel better if they kept active.

what are your ideas?

The new law will be expensive when considering insurance companies will have to provide proof for IRS who has insurance coverage. For the population as a whole that is going to be a HUGE expense passed on to their consumers.

IRS will have to hire more employees to check those returns and see that those who claim to have insurance actually do, expanding government yet again.

Billing will not be streamlined unless your position that if you have coverage, nothing will change has changed in itself. People with different companies will still have different rates and coverage. Right? Or does this give everyone who had good coverage the mediocre coverage for consumption by all...rationed care?

 

[Jackson]

Question: Are those waivers for Congress, special companies and unions still in effect?

 

[Care4all]

Rumors had been circulating in legal circles for weeks that Chief Justice Roberts in particular was under enormous political pressure not to be the vote that would overturn the most significant piece of social legislation passed by Congress in decades. Indeed, in April President Obama took the unusual step of issuing something of a public warning on the subject, saying that he was “confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

It is impossible for a lawyer to read even the first few pages of the dissent without coming away with the impression that this is a majority opinion that at the last moment lost its fifth vote. Its structure and tone are those of a winning coalition, not that of the losing side in the most controversial Supreme Court case in many years. But when we get to Page 13, far more conclusive evidence appears: No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.”

There is one likely explanation for this: The dissent was the majority opinion when those who voted to overturn the entire ACA signed off on sending their text to the printer. In other words, Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote at the very last possible moment.

Did John Roberts switch his vote? - Salon.com

*******************************

Enormous political pressure to not overturn ?

How in the hell does a CJ bow to political pressure. I don't give a rats ass about the "legitimacy" of the court. If Roberts caved, he should remove himself from the court. We don't need him.

The very idea that we have this sorry assed legislation because he bowed...makes me vomit.

And, I like that the article specfically points out that Obama made those public statements.

Obama...our so-called "Constitutional Scholar"/Moron-In-Chief basically would be guilty of interfering with what is supposed to be a separate branch of government.

But you libs liked that...anything for the victory...You've joined Obama in wiping your asses with the constitution for decades. You might as well have it printed on Charmin so you can make the job easier.

This is all very interesting. "Ginsberg's dissent" should have been altered to avoid this speculation. It is telling.

And it answers the question I had from the beginning. The mandate was ruled by Roberts as unconstitutional as the law was written under the Commerce Clause, but then he reached way too far and took the arguments presented in court that the penalty was not a penalty, but a "tax."

How could he do this when it was not written in the law? He was reaching and even said, "the tax may not be fair or wise", but it is constitutional. It may have been constitutional, but that is not the way the law was written.

So, I believed he reached too far, giving it a ruling of constitutionality but warning folks, it wasn't fair or wise to do so.

He caved.

If you were listening to Rush back when this was being argued before the supreme court a few months back, you would have heard him talk about the notion that was out there that Roberts, in an effort to protect the court's integrity he would join with the left in order to write the majority opinion himself in an effort to insert a poison pill in the language and open the law up to future challengens and legal restraint in the future while keeping this a campaign issue in which to bludgeon the left with for 2 more years till actual harm from the tax comes into play.

I was surprised at such an idea, and thats why it stuck with me. Now it seems, in a fluke he may have been correct in assessing it this way.

It's part of why I can't say he was coerced to flip instead of playing the long game for future victories by giving them a short term win, easily rolled back once harm is done.

hmmmmm.....so, it's all fine and dandy with you and the right wing for a Supreme court CJ to ''play politics'' and not be in their position to serve ALL of Americans, with Justice for All, but to politically manipulate their decisions to benefit the political party they belong to?

I say....IMPEACH HIM, if that's what he did.

I personally do not see John Roberts doing something like that....

but maybe you all know him better than me.

 

[Care4all]

Question: Are those waivers for Congress, special companies and unions still in effect?

from my understanding, Congress was NEVER waived, just another lie. Their Insurance company choices, will participate in the exchange like all other insurance companies...

don't know what you mean on the unions etc....? please explain....what will they be exempt from, specifically, and how long will they have this exemption?

 

[WillowTree]

Personally I think he was swayed, but then again... it doesn't matter to a hill of beans... we will not know for decades.

He re wrote the law. Making the HIGHEST tax increase in AMerican history the legacy of the democrats. And he gave us Citizens United.

 

[WillowTree]

President Romney is going to grant waivers to all 57 states.

 

[WillowTree]

Question: Are those waivers for Congress, special companies and unions still in effect?

yes,

 

[WillowTree]

Five hundred billion dollars stolen from the people who need care the most. Seniors. And what do they get in return? a 250 dollar assist with their meds.

 

[Dot Com]

I see WillowTree is still smarting from the conservative Bush Court's ruling.

 

[WillowTree]

we should probably just go to a single payer plan, that way all are covered, wealthy, middle, and the poor, from birth, and it would save us all money by cutting out the middle man, the paper pusher expense. We pay nearly $8k a year for health care insurance when said and done....i'd gladly give $5k extra a year in a healthcare tax for a Medical plan such as an improved Medicare for the rest of the country younger than 65....Shoot, it would still save us $3k a year from what we are paying now...

I truly don't know if my suggestion above is the be all, said all, answer...

I'm open to hear anyone's suggestion on how we can solve the major problems we've had with health insurance costs on the individuals like Matt and me, going up 10% a year for the past 15 years...employers are contributing less and less towards the total costs plus the insurance policies have gone up. We own our home, and cars so our health Insurance costs are the biggest expense we have, besides Food.....so we still count ourselves as ''part of the Lucky ones'', but I just can't imagine how hard it must be on others with a limited income....

There's got to be something we can do, to make things better....but in a smart way....we are smart people, we like solving problems, we hit challenges head on every day of the week....we should certainly be able to face this 100 lb gorilla of a problem, and come up with a solution that's good.

Single payer won't work. Fifty per cent of AMericans pay ZERO income tax. you expect the other fifty perscent to carry you ass on healthcare too? We got too may lazy assed bitches in the wagon and not enough people to pull it.

 

[WillowTree]

I see WillowTree is still smarting from the conservative Bush Court's ruling.

I don't like it. Sue me asswipe. I do however like Citizens United. It's our pathway to regain sanity.

 

[AquaAthena]

"Did Roberts Change His Mind ?"


Roberts changed his principles......