Justice Roberts...Why?

[Jackson]

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?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[Jackson]

What did I say that was wrong?

 

[brudder]

The chicago mob got to him, that's the only thing I can figure!!!!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[onecut39]

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.

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?

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

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.

 

[swizzlee]

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.

 

[JimH52]

I don't have an answer but your whining is pretty funny....