Justice Roberts...Why?

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Jackson, Jun 28, 2012.

  1. Jackson
    Offline

    Jackson Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    19,636
    Thanks Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +12,677
    Roberts found that Obamacare was was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. But he reached when he found it could be constitutional when it could be called a tax. Even though, as Roberts said he wasn' saying that would be fair or even wise.

    Why didn't he just stop at calling it unconstitutional as the law was stated instead of going where the law did not? The law did not state it as a tax.

    Any answers for me?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53,216
    Thanks Received:
    8,455
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +20,829
    You imply that you are a Constitutional scholar. If you're not, you might want to read the actual decisions. They're very enlightening.

    Or don't. Either way is okay with me.
     
  3. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53,216
    Thanks Received:
    8,455
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +20,829
    BTW, if you read other of Robert's opinions, you see very quickly that he is more judicious and less corrupt that Scalia and Thomas.

    If you have access to the interwebs, you can go right to this really neato website called, and you should write this down, g-o-o-g-l-e-d-o-t-c-o-m. Ask any question you can think of and POOF! There''s your answer.
     
  4. Jackson
    Offline

    Jackson Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    19,636
    Thanks Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +12,677
    What did I say that was wrong?
     
  5. brudder
    Offline

    brudder Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    Messages:
    76
    Thanks Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Ratings:
    +34
    The chicago mob got to him, that's the only thing I can figure!!!!
     
  6. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53,216
    Thanks Received:
    8,455
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +20,829
    Maybe he really isn't as crooked and corrupt as Scalia and Thomas. Maybe he really does want to do to "good" for his own country.

    Maybe the rw needs to stop expecting the conservative scotus to be corrupt and weasly.
     
  7. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,523
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +150
    I was really surprised Roberts did this. I would like to give him credit for being an honest broker but things get in the way.

    First he is an extraordinarily pro business justice and the insurance companies and much of the medica industry will, for a while at least, reap lots of profits off this. Second, he is a young guy and this is an instant legacy. This will be one of the landmark decisions history takes note of.

    I am glad he did this but I remain skeptical of motives. The days of the non political supreme court justice are just a memory.

    Am I too pessimistic?
     
  8. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    He did not want to completely overturn the law and cause a firestorm that would call into question the integrity of the Court itself. obama has had the Supreme Court under attack since he was elected.

    Instead, Roberts said, VERY CLEARLY, that the Court would not protect from the poor political decisions of the public. If you don't like the laws and taxes the legislature passes, get a new legislature.
     
  9. swizzlee
    Offline

    swizzlee RedWhiteAndBlue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    727
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    on a mountain
    Ratings:
    +124
    Jackson,

    "as the law was stated"..................

    The law itself did not contain any wording that described this law as legal under the Commerce Clause. Neither did the law as written use the word "tax." The bill used the word "penalty."

    It was only the verbal claims of the government that it was legal under the Commerce Clause. And then at the USSC oral arguments, worried that the Commerce Clause would be shot down, the DOJ argued that the penalty was actually a tax and therefore constitutional since Congress has the legal right to impose taxes.

    Justice Roberts merely agreed with the DOJ that, defined as a tax, the bill was constitutional but that it would be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
     
  10. JimH52
    Offline

    JimH52 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    19,235
    Thanks Received:
    3,092
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    US
    Ratings:
    +8,202
    I don't have an answer but your whining is pretty funny....:badgrin:
     

Share This Page