Our Supreme Court has lost its honor

[BDBoop]

Obama should have said, "Read my lips" when he said O-care wouldn't cause a rise in taxes. Of course, thinking persons knew better.

Well, as I understood it, the SCOTUS said "The individual mandate survives as a tax." What I perceived was that was how they got it through, not that that is how it went in.

 

[Si modo]

Obama should have said, "Read my lips" when he said O-care wouldn't cause a rise in taxes. Of course, thinking persons knew better.

Well, as I understood it, the SCOTUS said "The individual mandate survives as a tax." What I perceived was that was how they got it through, not that that is how it went in.

That IS how it got through.

It's a tax. Obama said it would not be. Most knew better.

Constitutional scholar. Right.

 

[Amelia]

Obama should have said, "Read my lips" when he said O-care wouldn't cause a rise in taxes. Of course, thinking persons knew better.

Yup. Spend more than a year stomping all over his stimulus and suppressing our economic recovery by pushing this monstrosity and taking his eye off the economic ball. Create the mandate he campaigned against during the Democratic primary. Promise not to raise taxes on middle class Americans. Swear this is not a tax. Then try to say it should stand because it is a tax.

Obama is a lying douche, but his lies are so complicated most people won't know enough to hold them against him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I posted this before they ruled, and boy are you pissy? Were you expecting to be celebrating?

I still can't answer Elvis, I'm too busy celebrating.

You posted something that is a flat out lie because you agreed with it. Me pointing out you agree with a lie, and that the court with no honor actually validated your opinion, is not being pissy, your reaction is.

By the way, if you want to know what you got wrong, this court is actually less likely to overturn a law than any previous court. When it does overturn a law it almost always invalidates a law supported by conservatives. You just got your panties in a twist because the court ruled 6-3 against campaign restrictions on free speech. That does not make the court morally bankrupt, but it does say something about you.

PS. I love your the picture you posted. You know there were actually 6 people that voted for the Obamacare, don't you?

 

[jillian]

Marshall was wrong. It is, instead, emphatically the province of the Legislative Branch to say what the law is.

The SCOTUS is reclaiming its honor, by the way.

Other than that, a really "meh" OP.

Marshall was wrong?

Because Levin says so?

I agree it is the province of the legislature to say what the law is. But it is the province of the Court to say whether that law comports with the constitution.

 

[BDBoop]

More insights.

Politics - David Paul Kuhn - The Incredible Polarization and Politicization of the Supreme Court - The Atlantic

Had Chief Justice John Roberts sided with his fellow conservatives, as he often does, the definitive legislation of Barack Obama's presidency, progressives' century-long fight for universal health care, would have been thrown out. We are inured to this irony: Many of the Court's rulings that have the greatest influence on American life are increasingly decided by the narrowest possible margin.

It wasn't always this way. From 1801 to 1940, less than 2 percent of the Supreme Court's total rulings were resolved by 5-to-4 decisions. Since then, more than 16 percent of the Court's rulings have been decided by "minimum-winning coalitions." In the two most recent Courts, more than a fifth of all rulings were decided by 5-to-4 votes.

Scholars consider these narrow decisions the most political. Research indicates that 5-to-4 rulings are the most likely to be overturned by later Courts. They carry the same legal authority as more unanimous opinions -- but not the same moral authority. In this vein, the one branch of government designed to be above partisanship echoes the rise in hyperpartisanship seen throughout Washington.

The Roberts Court has decided more cases by a 5-to-4 ruling (about 21.5 percent) than any Court before it, though only by a narrow margin. The previous Court, led by William Rehnquist, decided 20.5 percent of its cases by this minimum coalition. That rate, however, represents roughly twice the share of 5-to-4 rulings in the Stone Court, during World War II. And the Stone Court had more than three times the rate of 5-to-4 decisions of any Court prior.

 

[Pho_King]

Nope. Not buying into your pessimism today.

Well, cupcake, that is because people like you would rather the Feds have more power over your personal decision-making authority. The concept of being taxed for non-action is pleasing to you.

 

[BDBoop]

Nope. Not buying into your pessimism today.

Well, cupcake, that is because people like you would rather the Feds have more power over your personal decision-making authority. The concept of being taxed for non-action is pleasing to you.

Studley! What are you doing here? I thought you bailed on us.

 

[Pho_King]

Nope. Not buying into your pessimism today.

Well, cupcake, that is because people like you would rather the Feds have more power over your personal decision-making authority. The concept of being taxed for non-action is pleasing to you.

Studley! What are you doing here? I thought you bailed on us.

Nah. Been takin care of my niece.

 

[signelect]

Unfortunately the SUpreme Court is made up of humans. They have become just as political as congress and I think Roberts was dead wrong along with the other 4 who supported him. How do you tax somoene for not buying health care because they don't have the moeny and how will collect the tax money that they don't have? Just asking. Just maybe it is a plan by Obama to increase employment by have to start a new government agency to monitor and collect the new tax. Just what we need more goverment employees. Been to a Post Office lately for service.

 

[mudwhistle]

Screw this.

It's 108 degrees and all I care about is getting a popsicle.

 

[BDBoop]

Screw this.

It's 108 degrees and all I care about is getting a popsicle.

Excellent plan. A pool full of popsicles, that's what we need.

 

[Uncensored2008]

These 5 people serve corporations in looting, in defiance of the American people and the constitution.

The United States Supreme Court, a wholly owned subsidiary of Kaiser Permanante.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Screw this.

It's 108 degrees and all I care about is getting a popsicle.

It's 108° in Yorkshire?

 

[mudwhistle]

Screw this.

It's 108 degrees and all I care about is getting a popsicle.

It's 108° in Yorkshire?

Right next to Froglick.

Saw "Day After Tomorrow" the day before yesterday.

The current high temps must mean an Iceage is coming.

 

[LAfrique]

Our Supreme Court has lost its honor - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

The greatest power the justices have is carved into the marble of the Supreme Court Building and gilded in gold: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

These are the words of John Marshall, the fourth U.S. chief justice, written in 1803. His decision established forever that the Supreme Court had the right to uphold or strike down laws passed by Congress.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given this power. The Supreme Court took it in a 4-0 decision. (There were only six members on the court at the time and two were sick.)

/snip

We realized they were human beings with political opinions, but we expected them to put those opinions aside.
And then came 2000 and the court’s 5-4 decision that made George W. Bush the president of the United States. The decision was nakedly political. “The case didn’t just scar the Court’s record,” Jeffrey Toobin wrote in The New Yorker, “it damaged the Court’s honor.”

Its honor has never fully recovered. Our current court is led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush in 2005 after having worked on Bush’s behalf in Florida in 2000.

The signature of the Roberts Court, Toobin wrote, has been its eagerness to overturn the work of legislatures. This is hardly conservative doctrine but today, politics trumps even ideology. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court “gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law” which amounted to “a boon for Republicans.”

It looks to me like there are two separate and distinct issues to discuss. First, the SCOTUS placed themselves above the other two branches, and second, they are using said power in a corrupt fashion.

It is not just the Judicial branch: The entire US government has lost its honor; and unfortunately, with the support of the unsuspecting public - http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...f-justice-john-roberts-voted-4-obamacare.html