Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the overall scheme of things, this doesn't really matter. The decision is taken. It doesn't really matter how they got there.
But it adds an interesting twist to Chief Justice John Souter Roberts' inexplicable abandonment of the idea that the Federal government's powers are enumerated and limited.
Did Chief Justice John Roberts decide to join the court's liberal wing and uphold the individual mandate at the very last minute?
by Liz Goodwin
June 28, 2012
That's the theory floated by Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Boulder, and Brad DeLong, a Berkeley economics professor and former Treasury Department official under President Clinton. Campos wrote Thursday in Salon that the dissent had a triumphant tone, as if it were written as a majority opinion, and that the four conservative justices incorrectly refer to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as a "dissent."
"No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as 'Justice Ginsburg's dissent,'" Campos wrote.
(snip)
(Full text of the arrticle can be read at the above URL)
It appears that the man knew what he was doing. I have heard Charles Krauthammer talking about the deal and he makes a lot of sense about what has been done. At least so far the Court is still alive and the left is very happy with him.
Well maybe the taxation question may have put the Dems in a hole for November. Since the mandate had to be allowed but only as a tax it seems they may have quite a problem dealing with something that Obama promised not to do. This a tax on the middle class as will be the ending of the Bush-Obama tax cuts in December. We will all suffer and surely people can be showed how much before the first of November.
Anyway, here is quite an argument about how the decision may well help us out.
At the expense of setting a precedent that the federal government can involve itself in literally ANYTHING (I realize with decisions like Wickard v. Filburn, they've already done that, but this expands even that case).
No thanks. I'll take the correct ruling on the law, which is that it is wholly unconstitutional. I'd also appreciate a nudge back in the correct direction, which is individual liberty and a relatively weak central government.
Guess we have to hope the "LOVE" is gone. Some are going to vote for Obama because, Romney is a Mormon, Romney is just like Obama why change, not voting for a Republican.
Some will just bury us in more lies of the Obama administration and vote blindly for a man that hates America.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds
Guess we have to hope the "LOVE" is gone. Some are going to vote for Obama because, Romney is a Mormon, Romney is just like Obama why change, not voting for a Republican.
Some will just bury us in more lies of the Obama administration and vote blindly for a man that hates America.
And some will just make baseless allegations of imagined hatred and other silliness, eh?
At the expense of setting a precedent that the federal government can involve itself in literally ANYTHING (I realize with decisions like Wickard v. Filburn, they've already done that, but this expands even that case).
No thanks. I'll take the correct ruling on the law, which is that it is wholly unconstitutional. I'd also appreciate a nudge back in the correct direction, which is individual liberty and a relatively weak central government.
Who needs the SCOTUS when we have posters like you
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,830,626 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
In the overall scheme of things, this doesn't really matter. The decision is taken. It doesn't really matter how they got there.
But it adds an interesting twist to Chief Justice John Souter Roberts' inexplicable abandonment of the idea that the Federal government's powers are enumerated and limited.
Did Chief Justice John Roberts decide to join the court's liberal wing and uphold the individual mandate at the very last minute?
by Liz Goodwin
June 28, 2012
That's the theory floated by Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Boulder, and Brad DeLong, a Berkeley economics professor and former Treasury Department official under President Clinton. Campos wrote Thursday in Salon that the dissent had a triumphant tone, as if it were written as a majority opinion, and that the four conservative justices incorrectly refer to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as a "dissent."
"No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as 'Justice Ginsburg's dissent,'" Campos wrote.
(snip)
(Full text of the arrticle can be read at the above URL)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Justice Roberts may have done us a big favor
