I predicted some red State dems would vote for Kavanaugh with a confirmation vote of 56-44, now it looks like for the first time in history a supreme court justice will be confirmed with a positive vote of less than 50. 49-48 for confirmation, no one saw this one coming.
Your thoughts?
.
SCOTUS has become just another arm of the GOP.
It's now just a tool for reversal of Roe v Wade, just as the Republicans have been threatening for 20 years.
People who KNEW Trump was nothing but a cheap, sleazy porn-star ******* tax-evading con man voted for him just because he promised to load the court with right wing evangelical assholes who would end abortion.
And that is exactly what has happened.
So when the welfare roles explode over the next 10 years from unwanted children whose families can't afford them, you right wing buttheads promise right here and now that YOU will bear the cost.
Pony up, bitches.
.
.
.
.
It's obvious how much you fear losing your regressive super legislature. Judges aren't there to create or adjust a law to your liking, something Roberts has yet to learn.
.
Roberts is usually on the right side of what I consider true judicial jurisprudence, but he does stray every once in awhile. Such as in allowing the Obama Administration to redefine the Obamacare mandate as a tax and therefore legal to impose. (Never mind that Obama sold the ACA on the basis that it would NOT raise or impose new taxes in any way (and would not interfere with any existing systems that were satisfactory to the people.)
For that reason I would be thrilled if President Trump got one more SCOTUS pick before he leaves office. Preferably two more as Justice Thomas isn't a spring chicken any more. That would truly lock in a court that puts the Constitution and Law ahead of politics or partisanship or legal manipulations or socioeconomic ideology.
You're giving Roberts way more credit than he deserves. There was no severance clause in the ACA so the second they found anything unconstitutional in it, it should have been stricken in its entirety.
But Roberts philosophy is the court should salvage deeply flawed legislation if possible, he said so in the decision. That's not the job of the court, if legislation is flawed, it's up to the legislature that wrote it to fix it.
Roberts rewrote the ACA on at least two occasions, you mentioned the first, converting an unconstitutional penalty, to, in my opinion an unconstitutional tax. I say that because he claimed not having insurance could trigger more income tax. However the 16th Amendment says only income is a trigger for income tax. So in essence Roberts created a new direct tax that is authorized no where in the Constitution.
The second occasion was with the subsidies. The law said on 9 separate times that subsidies could only be paid to people who obtained insurance from State exchanges. When the law way written the commies didn't think the court would strike their extortion plot to force the States to open exchanges. Once that happened and many of the States told congress to pound sand, maobama illegally directed that subsidies be paid to folks who got their insurance through the federal exchange. When challenged, Roberts ignored black letter law, within the four corners of the ACA and decided that congress really intended to pay subsidies regardless of the exchange it was purchased from, even though congress stated 9 times that was not their intent.
Hopefully Kavanaugh can help straighten out Roberts stink'n think'n.
.
