Kudos to John Roberts

[Ravi]

from his ruling:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

 

[jillian]

yep. he's ok in my book...

for today.

on the other hand, let me go re-read the ledbetter case.

or citizen's united.

 

[rightwinger]

Roberts knew his legacy as Chief Justice was riding on this vote

He did not want to go down in history as the man who killed Obamacare

 

[jillian]

Roberts knew his legacy as Chief Justice was riding on this vote

He did not want to go down in history as the man who killed Obamacare

i don't think he cared so much about the ACA. i think he was more concerned about being the chief justice to preside over the de-legitimization of the court.

he couldn't afford another 5 to 4 decision on a major legal question.

 

[Inthemiddle]

he couldn't afford another 5 to 4 decision on a major legal question.

You mean on a major political question, right? I dunno. I like to believe that this was a straight shot ruling. But realistically, even Supreme Court Justices are human. Oh how I wish I could have been a fly on that wall....

 

[Sallow]

When Bush nominated him..and I had a look at his record..I thought he was a fine pick. Then came along Citizens United and Heller..and I amended my thinking on that.

However..I may need to amend it again.

 

[JimH52]

We could say Bush apponted a moderte to the SC or we could say Bush appointed someone who actually is not beholden to the Far Right. I think he deserves applause....

 

[jillian]

he couldn't afford another 5 to 4 decision on a major legal question.

You mean on a major political question, right? I dunno. I like to believe that this was a straight shot ruling. But realistically, even Supreme Court Justices are human. Oh how I wish I could have been a fly on that wall....

well, i meant a major legal decision with major political implications

ditto... i'd have loved to have heard the negotiations and seen the draft decisions going back and forth

 

[Valerie]

from his ruling:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

Yes, very refreshing to have legal clarity on this issue going forward...



The majority ruling is essentially saying it is up to the branches to work out the differences.

"When a court confronts an unconstitutional statue its endeavor must be to to conserve, not destroy the legislation," Roberts wrote.

Justice John Roberts issued a long opinion in which he said the controversial individual mandate may be upheld and is within Congress’ power under the taxing clause rather than the commerce clause.

Important to say that (obviously) this is a complicated ruling and Roberts' did say indiv. mandate could not stand under Commerce Clause.

Supreme Court upholds health care law - This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Liability]

from his ruling:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

But he apparently concluded that they were invested with the power to change the terms USED by Congress in an ACT to mean very different things.

Penalty does not mean tax nor vice versa.

But Roberts saw fit to tell us that even though Congress called the mandate a penalty what they must have really really "meant" was "tax." But NOT the kind of tax that would have required it to be apportioned. No no. That "other" kind of tax that they call a penalty.

Uh huh.

 

[Oddball]

from his ruling:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

But he apparently concluded that they were invested with the power to change the terms USED by Congress in an ACT to mean very different things.

Penalty does not mean tax nor vice versa.

But Roberts saw fit to tell us that even though Congress called the mandate a penalty what they must have really really "meant" was "tax." But NOT the kind of tax that would have required it to be apportioned. No no. That "other" kind of tax that they call a penalty.

Uh huh.

Even though Breyer was constantly correcting the SG during arguments, repeatedly prompting him to say "penalty" rather than "tax".

Yet he falls in with the bizarre notion that you can tax a "transaction" that isn't taking place.

 

[Liability]

from his ruling:



Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

But he apparently concluded that they were invested with the power to change the terms USED by Congress in an ACT to mean very different things.

Penalty does not mean tax nor vice versa.

But Roberts saw fit to tell us that even though Congress called the mandate a penalty what they must have really really "meant" was "tax." But NOT the kind of tax that would have required it to be apportioned. No no. That "other" kind of tax that they call a penalty.

Uh huh.

Even though Breyer was constantly correcting the SG during arguments, repeatedly prompting him to say "penalty" rather than "tax".

Yet he falls in with the bizarre notion that you can tax a "transaction" that isn't taking place.

They are penalizing you WITH a tax.

Oh wait. I meant taxalizing you with a penalty.

And that whole "apportioned" thing? This isn't that kind of tax. Err -- penalty. No, no, I was right before. It's not that kind of tax. There's no Constitution behind the curtain.

 

[Ravi]

I love the smell of wingnut frustration.

 

[Liability]

I love the smell of wingnut frustration.

It's called frustration at stupidity.

You must sniff that a whole lot.

 

[Oddball]

I love the smell of wingnut frustration.

It's called frustration at stupidity.

You must sniff that a whole lot.

Fish don't know they're wet.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You guys are pretty funny simpletons.
If you could comprehend what he read today - then you would understand that he found as we expected - the mandate is unconstitutional, however falls under the authority of congress as a tax. Which is not at all what the congress critters and the President told us - in fact they vehemently denied it.
So what he said today is by law - what you voted on was a tax increase for those who could least afford it as a fine for not having insurance.
Congratulations Ravi. If you don't have insurance, you will either have to buy some with money you don't have (otherwise you would already have it) or you will pay a tax penalty for not doing so.
Have a nice day.

 

[Ravi]

You guys are pretty funny simpletons.
If you could comprehend what he read today - then you would understand that he found as we expected - the mandate is unconstitutional, however falls under the authority of congress as a tax. Which is not at all what the congress critters and the President told us - in fact they vehemently denied it.
So what he said today is by law - what you voted on was a tax increase for those who could least afford it as a fine for not having insurance.
Congratulations Ravi. If you don't have insurance, you will either have to buy some with money you don't have (otherwise you would already have it) or you will pay a tax penalty for not doing so.
Have a nice day.

I have insurance

If you don't, and you can't afford it, you will either be eligible for medicaid or receive a waiver for being too poor to afford it

 

[hortysir]

from his ruling:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

But the man also said this:

The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I love the smell of wingnut frustration.

Some Conservatives here appear to be suffering a bit of "Stockholm Syndrome"

"I wasn't raped! I liked it! It was consentual!"

 

[elvis]

Yet another bush fuckup.