Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Forever, this court will be known as the Robert's Court and Roberts may want this court, his court, to go down in history as a famous, honest, judicial court, one that finds for the American people and not a political party. If so, perhaps Roberts has decided to follow a judicial route rather than political one. At least America can hope so, but I doubt it. I'll wait for the other shoe.
I know that Roberts does not want to rectify the idiocy and cowardice of the Legislatures from the Bench.
Obamacare qualifies as idiocy.
That said, the notion that the Mandate is a tax is not supported by the arguments of the litigants and I'm not sure that this ruling is a good one on that basis.
Lawyers in the crowd: I know that a judge can do whatever he like on the bench, but is this a justified conclusion on the part of the Justice Roberts? Shouldn't the thing upon which he decides the fate of legislation which will end the Republic be constructed by the legal team arguing for it?
This seems a little contrived to me.
i agree that the tax finding was stretching it. it should have been sustained on the basis of the commerce clause, imo. either way it was sustainable.
judges have an absolute right to substitute their own reasoning for that of the attorneys litigating. often, the judge wants a certain result, but not for the reasons offered to him or her.
That... that's a very nice hat.
Well, we have Citizens, and now we have ACA. It is clear Roberts is a progressive right wing statist.
I thought that Citizens was a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
I'm not at all sure what this is.
The Reps need to start pounding on what this is going to cost every individual.
If you don't have healthcare because you can't afford it, hang on because soon you will afford it or we will take all of your money from you.
No, it is not strict interp; show me were the Constitution says corporations are citizens.
I think the Supremes have become political, also.
Steadily since 2000. Roberts' decision surprised me forcefully. Having read his arguments, I am of the belief that we have a court that will make legislation comport with the Constitution through SCOTUS re-writing when necessary.
Glad to know you see exactly when it all became customary for government to rewrite Constitution. 2000, and especially with Patriot Act II!
I know that Roberts does not want to rectify the idiocy and cowardice of the Legislatures from the Bench.
Obamacare qualifies as idiocy.
That said, the notion that the Mandate is a tax is not supported by the arguments of the litigants and I'm not sure that this ruling is a good one on that basis.
Lawyers in the crowd: I know that a judge can do whatever he like on the bench, but is this a justified conclusion on the part of the Justice Roberts? Shouldn't the thing upon which he decides the fate of legislation which will end the Republic be constructed by the legal team arguing for it?
This seems a little contrived to me.
i agree that the tax finding was stretching it. it should have been sustained on the basis of the commerce clause, imo. either way it was sustainable.
judges have an absolute right to substitute their own reasoning for that of the attorneys litigating. often, the judge wants a certain result, but not for the reasons offered to him or her.
Why did they not instead introduce a healthcare tax as is case with Social Security from income? Would have been more appropriate and acceptable, especially since everyone is talking about mandatory insurance been individual responsibility. Sole winner on Obamacare's mandatory insurance is insurance industry.
Steadily since 2000. Roberts' decision surprised me forcefully. Having read his arguments, I am of the belief that we have a court that will make legislation comport with the Constitution through SCOTUS re-writing when necessary.
Glad to know you see exactly when it all became customary for government to rewrite Constitution. 2000, and especially with Patriot Act II!
Nice try, but it happened in Marbury v Madison.
Forever, this court will be known as the Robert's Court and Roberts may want this court, his court, to go down in history as a famous, honest, judicial court, one that finds for the American people and not a political party. If so, perhaps Roberts has decided to follow a judicial route rather than political one. At least America can hope so, but I doubt it. I'll wait for the other shoe.
I know that Roberts does not want to rectify the idiocy and cowardice of the Legislatures from the Bench.
Obamacare qualifies as idiocy.
That said, the notion that the Mandate is a tax is not supported by the arguments of the litigants and I'm not sure that this ruling is a good one on that basis.
Lawyers in the crowd: I know that a judge can do whatever he like on the bench, but is this a justified conclusion on the part of the Justice Roberts? Shouldn't the thing upon which he decides the fate of legislation which will end the Republic be constructed by the legal team arguing for it?
This seems a little contrived to me.
I agree that the tax finding was stretching it. it should have been sustained on the basis of the commerce clause, imo. either way it was sustainable.
Judges have an absolute right to substitute their own reasoning for that of the attorneys litigating. often, the judge wants a certain result, but not for the reasons offered to him or her.
Why Chief Justice John Roberts Voted 4 Obamacare
Why Chief Justice John Roberts Voted 4 Obamacare
Because he owns healthcare stocks.
.
