Activist Judges!!!!

[scott]

Just getting this one started. I may not even find out what the ruling was, but rather just check back in this thread and determine the ruling based on who's posting.

[Drachen]

I know! WTF! you can lie about getting the medal of honor. Fucking activist judges!

[Drachen]

I don't want to post in both threads: deleting.

[cheguevara]

LOL Foxnews.com meltdown

[boutons_deux]

Ruling Likely to Prompt Re-evaluation of Roberts

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. surprised many on Thursday by providing the crucial fifth vote for upholding President Obama's health care law. To those on the left who viewed him as an ideologue eager to pull the court rightward in a political fashion, this will now begin a re-examination of his style and legacy as it will for those on the right who considered the law unconstitutional and relied on him to make that point.

Many scholars have said that Chief Justice Roberts sought to balance his own conservatism with his desire to build faith in the law and the nation's legal institutions. But it was still striking to hear Mr. Roberts, who arrived on the court in 2005 appointed by George W. Bush, announce the upholding of the central legislative pillar of the Obama administration. He did arrive on the bench asserting the desire to restore the court's reputation and reduce partisan rhetoric. But he was seen by many, at least on the left, as a right-winger more devoted to conservative politics than the purity of the law. That could change.

"This could be a huge day in the evolution of Chief Justice Roberts as a great chief justice,"

Chief Justice Roberts used the Obama administration's backup argument about what makes the health care law constitutional.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=940333&f=19

[PublicOption]

Under President Obama:

People 1
Insurance Companies 0

LOL.

...............after the insurance companies were undefeated for about 40 years.

[PublicOption]

Great effffing day.

[coyotes_geek]

Under President Obama:

People 1
Insurance Companies 0

LOL.

...............after the insurance companies were undefeated for about 40 years.

You do realize that the law that just got upheld forces "people" to do business with "insurance companies", don't you?


Great effffing day.

If you're an insurance company.......

[boutons_deux]

Insurance companies and BigPharma will really rake it in now.

The effort now is to fix ACA where the vested interests broke it.

But the Repug effort will be to try to repeal it, or at least defund it.

If Gecko gets in and both Houses go Repug, it will be repealed (they VOW it will be).

[ElNono]

Under President Obama:

People 1
Insurance Companies 0

LOL.

...............after the insurance companies were undefeated for about 40 years.

what? I'm stocking up on Ins Co stocks right now, tbh... govt mandated purchase of their product? not even oilcos have it that good

[baseline bum]

Under President Obama:

People 1
Insurance Companies 0

LOL.

...............after the insurance companies were undefeated for about 40 years.

LOL, as Maher says, this bill is just a blowjob to the insurance industry. What a piece of shit.

[Yonivore]

Hey, at least Roberts has made him own the largest tax hike in the history of the world.

Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video?id=8620606)

SCOTUS calls bullshit.

[cheguevara]

Barry Hussein, Constitutional Law Professor

[scott]

largest tax hike in the history of the world.

Please elaborate. GO!

[ElNono]

Hey, at least Roberts has made him own the largest tax hike in the history of the world.

You sound kind of mad, Yoni. Please elaborate.

[Yonivore]

Please elaborate. GO!
I just find it kind of ironic the only way Obamacare survives is for the SCOTUS to call the individual mandate something the administration and Democrats insisted it wasn't, a tax.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, at least Roberts has made him own the largest tax hike in the history of the world.Show us the numbers and compare it to the second largest tax increase.

[PublicOption]

You do realize that the law that just got upheld forces "people" to do business with "insurance companies", don't you?



If you're an insurance company.......

Then why did stocks drop dramatically for big insurance companies today you retards. Why did insurance companies fight this bill with everything they had. Because they liked it.......lol.

[PublicOption]

.........and the only reason the mandate was in there was because the GOP and ins companies wanted it in there.

[scott]

I just find it kind of ironic the only way Obamacare survives is for the SCOTUS to call the individual mandate something the administration and Democrats insisted it wasn't, a tax.

So you meant it was the largest tax increase in history when measured in Irony?

[FromWayDowntown]

So you meant it was the largest tax increase in history when measured in Irony?

Hot rhetoric eliminates any need for empirical support.

[FromWayDowntown]

By the way scott: well played on the thread.

[scott]

By the way scott: well played on the thread.

Thanks. Spent my hiatus working on it.

[coyotes_geek]

Why did insurance companies fight this bill with everything they had. Because they liked it.......lol.


.........and the only reason the mandate was in there was because the GOP and ins companies wanted it in there.

So your position is that the insurance companies faught a bill that gave them exactly what they wanted, with everything they had. That makes sense.

[101A]

Under President Obama:

People 1
Insurance Companies 0

LOL.

...............after the insurance companies were undefeated for about 40 years.


As a representative of the insurance industry:

:lmao

[101A]

Then why did stocks drop dramatically for big insurance companies today you retards. Why did insurance companies fight this bill with everything they had. Because they liked it.......lol.

Stocks were down across the board yesterday; if you want to see what Big Insurance does when it truly feels threatened, review what they did to HillaryCare. Insurance DID NOT fight this version of Obamacare. No reason to. It requires employers over 50 employees to cover all employees - AND it provides subsidies for sick people to get them off those plans and into government pools. Insurance companies made out like bandits; to the extent that they could have written this law. Seriously.

Why does it not APPEAR that way to you? Because Obama needs them to be the bogeyman, doesn't he. Are they willing to assume that role for the benefits provided by this bill. You betterdamnwellbeliveit!

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and a 60 vote majority in the Senate and THIS is what gets passed?!! And liberal tribe-members are excited about it? lol.

[boutons_deux]

"THIS is what gets passed"

Dems are financed by UCA, too.

UCA, finance, and the 1% own and operate the USA for their benefit. without the mandate for for-profit insurance, ACA would have been Harry-and-Louise'd to death.

[101A]

"THIS is what gets passed"

Dems are financed by UCA, too.

UCA, finance, and the 1% own and operate the USA for their benefit. without the mandate for for-profit insurance, ACA would have been Harry-and-Louise'd to death.

B, you really CAN'T allow for no pre-existing conditions exclusions if you don't get everyone into the system.

Do that with Homeowners insurance, and people would purchase it UNTIL the house was on fire.

[mercos]

I'm still amazed that it was Roberts and not Kennedy joining the four more liberal justices in the majority opinion. I can't help but feel that there was a ton of political wrangling going on behind the scenes. I'm not sure if Roberts was trying to avoid a ton of pressure on the Supreme Court, or just looking to improve its image after the Citizens United fiasco, but this wreaks of more a political decision than a judicial one.

All that being said, I'm glad it went down the way it did. Striking down the law would have been terrible for the country in my opinion, at least from a political perspective. The court essentially passed the buck onto the American voters. If they don't want Obamacare, they can vote in enough senators and Mitt Romney as presidet to have it repealed.

[boutons_deux]

"have it repealed."

the insurance lobby will shut Gecko and the Repugs up, who are no just inflaming the igorant bubbas. ACA won't be repealed, but the Repugs, if the continue as the majority in the House, will defund it, like they do with the IRS, EPA, SEC, etc.

[101A]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/five-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-might-not-be-as-bad-as-you-think/

[Yonivore]

So you meant it was the largest tax increase in history when measured in Irony?
Thanks for latching onto the hyperbole and ignoring the relevant idea in the post, (although, given the government's ability to estimate costs/revenues of any of their actions, I wouldn't be surprised if the Affordable Care Act becomes one of the biggest tax burdens ever heaped on productive Americans).

On the other issue; granted, this is a loss for the right and libertarians. The individual mandate survived a Supreme Court challenge. Something I didn't think would happen. I admit to being both disappointed and surprised by how it came down. But, oh well, you win some, you lose some.

What I find interesting is Justice Roberts having to contort the individual mandate "penalty" into something the authors and proponents vehemently denied it was; a tax.

So, now, Republicans can campaign for the next four months on how Obama lied -- once again -- about not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. 60% of public already want the AFA repealed (they wanted it struck down) and, with it now being called a tax, it can only become more unpopular.

On the bright side, the SCOTUS finally drew a line in the sand on just what the Government can do under the specter of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause -- both of which were used by Democrats to justify the individual mandate and both of which were specifically struck down by Justice Roberts' majority opinion.

Also, now that the individual mandate penalty tax is being called what the Court views it as, a tax, any repeal legislation cannot be filibustered.

Democrats win! They win the privilege of heaping yet another tax on the people. Congratulations. I mean it.

[boutons_deux]

Conservatives Claim Roberts Upheld Obamacare Because Of ‘Cognitive Problems’ Due To Epilepsy Medication

On his radio show yesterday, right-wing host Michael Savage — who has previously called autism a “phony disease” — claimed that Roberts’ epilepsy is the root cause of his “cognitive dissociation” in the Obamacare ruling:

Let’s talk about Roberts. I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/29/508761/conservatives-claim-roberts-upheld-obamacare-because-of-cognitive-problems-due-to-his-epilepsy-medicine/

[boutons_deux]

"Obama lied -- once again -- about not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000."

Why Obamacare Is A Tax Cut For Millions Of Americans

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday that Obamacare, the 2010 health care law, is constitutional under Congress’ ability to tax, Republicans have launched a full court press calling the individual mandate a “massive tax hike.” But as ThinkProgress noted yesterday, there is no massive tax hike: few people will ever pay the penalty, and those who do will pay less than the amount of the payroll tax increase that Republicans nearly allowed to occur.

In addition, according to a report from Families USA, 28.6 million Americans, most of them middle-class, will receive tax cuts under the bill due to entering health care exchanges and receiving affordability credits:

We found that an estimated 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for the tax credits in 2014, and that the total value of the tax credits that year will be $110.1 billion. The new tax credits will provide much-needed assistance to insured individuals and families who struggle harder each year to pay rising premiums, as well as to uninsured individuals and families who need help purchasing coverage that otherwise would be completely out of reach financially. Most of the families who will be eligible for the tax credits will be employed, many for small businesses, and will have incomes between two and four times poverty (between $44,100 and $88,200 for a family of four based on 2010 poverty guidelines).

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/29/508749/obamacare-middle-class-taxes/

[boutons_deux]

Trump Says John Roberts’ Birth Certificate is Fake

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – Controversy swirled around John Roberts today as billionaire Donald Trump claimed that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had a fraudulent birth certificate.

Mr. Trump said that these are the findings of a team of personal investigators he retained just after ten o’clock yesterday morning.

According to these investigators, Justice Roberts, who claims to have grown up in Indiana, was actually born in a mud hut in a tiny rural village in Kenya.

Furthermore, Mr. Trump claimed, “So-called John Roberts’ father was a village witchdoctor who forced all of the villagers to submit to his shamanic treatments, whether they wanted them or not.”

While most of the mainstream media seemed skeptical of Mr. Trump’s allegations, Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel called them “very concerning,” adding, “It’s time that the American people learned the truth about John Hussein Roberts.”

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

[ChumpDumper]

Conservatives Claim Roberts Upheld Obamacare Because Of ‘Cognitive Problems’ Due To Epilepsy Medication

On his radio show yesterday, right-wing host Michael Savage — who has previously called autism a “phony disease” — claimed that Roberts’ epilepsy is the root cause of his “cognitive dissociation” in the Obamacare ruling:

Let’s talk about Roberts. I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/29/508761/conservatives-claim-roberts-upheld-obamacare-because-of-cognitive-problems-due-to-his-epilepsy-medicine/:lol

More fun reactions here:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/roberts-supreme-court-right-wing.php

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm still amazed that it was Roberts and not Kennedy joining the four more liberal justices in the majority opinion. I can't help but feel that there was a ton of political wrangling going on behind the scenes. I'm not sure if Roberts was trying to avoid a ton of pressure on the Supreme Court, or just looking to improve its image after the Citizens United fiasco, but this wreaks of more a political decision than a judicial one.

All that being said, I'm glad it went down the way it did. Striking down the law would have been terrible for the country in my opinion, at least from a political perspective. The court essentially passed the buck onto the American voters. If they don't want Obamacare, they can vote in enough senators and Mitt Romney as presidet to have it repealed.


There is swirling speculation that either of two things is true of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in the ACA case.

Many believe that Roberts was originally the author of an opinion for the majority of the Court that consisted of himself, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, which would have wholly invalidated the Act entirely but that he switched sides either because the eventual dissenters wanted the opinion to go to lengths that Roberts thought were untenable or because Roberts was eventually persuaded by the tax argument. There is some textual support in the various opinions for that view, though we might not ever know if it is the true story.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/06/early-thoughts-on-health-care-case.html

The other view -- and the one that seems quite plausible to me -- is that Chief Justice Roberts saw this case as a watershed moment for a Court that has become increasingly politicized and polarized in recent years and felt an institutional obligation (to the Court) to find a way to entrust political decisions to the political branches and their constituents. It's a romanticized notion, but it's hardly one without historical precedent; past Chief Justices have frequently found a need to preserve the Court's political independence and have worked assiduously to find something as close to unanimity as possible. Chief Justice Warren's efforts to ensure that Brown v. Board of Education was decided unanimously is perhaps the most famous example of this.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/29/did-chief-justice-roberts-change-his-vote-perhaps-not/

[CosmicCowboy]

Isn't it pretty unprecedented for a supreme court to rewrite a law sent to it instead of just ruling on whether the law as written is constitutional?

[ElNono]

What was "re-written"? The SCOTUS is in the business of analyzing laws and seeing how they fit in the constitutional framework, if they fit at all. I don't think even the dissenting judges claimed law was being re-written by the majority (I could be wrong, didn't read the dissenting opinion in it's entirety).

[Yonivore]

There is swirling speculation that either of two things is true of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in the ACA case.

Many believe that Roberts was originally the author of an opinion for the majority of the Court that consisted of himself, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, which would have wholly invalidated the Act entirely but that he switched sides either because the eventual dissenters wanted the opinion to go to lengths that Roberts thought were untenable or because Roberts was eventually persuaded by the tax argument. There is some textual support in the various opinions for that view, though we might not ever know if it is the true story.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/06/early-thoughts-on-health-care-case.html

The other view -- and the one that seems quite plausible to me -- is that Chief Justice Roberts saw this case as a watershed moment for a Court that has become increasingly politicized and polarized in recent years and felt an institutional obligation (to the Court) to find a way to entrust political decisions to the political branches and their constituents. It's a romanticized notion, but it's hardly one without historical precedent; past Chief Justices have frequently found a need to preserve the Court's political independence and have worked assiduously to find something as close to unanimity as possible. Chief Justice Warren's efforts to ensure that Brown v. Board of Education was decided unanimously is perhaps the most famous example of this.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/29/did-chief-justice-roberts-change-his-vote-perhaps-not/
On the first scenario, there is some evidence much of the dissent was written in support of a majority opinion.

On the second, don't you find it odd Roberts used something called the "fairly possible" test in order to construe the individual mandate penalty into a tax when no one on the side supporting the law saw it that way and, in fact, went to great lengths to assure the American people it wasn't a tax?

In one of the articles I read, the "fairly possible" test is generally applied when the court is reluctant to overturn a popular law and, in promoting the democratic process, the courts will apply the test to determine if the popular intent of the law is "fairly possible."

Seems odd that Roberts would actually be the one to make the claim the mandate's penalty was a tax and then support it by saying it's fairly possible to view it as such.

[Yonivore]

What was "re-written"? The SCOTUS is in the business of analyzing laws and seeing how they fit in the constitutional framework, if they fit at all. I don't think even the dissenting judges claimed law was being re-written by the majority (I could be wrong, didn't read the dissenting opinion in it's entirety).
If you agree the Individual Mandate was the linchpin on which the law lived or died, then technically, the law was transformed from a health care law to a tax bill.

The distinction isn't minor.

I'm sure they'll be re-visiting the origin of the legislation since all tax bills must begin in the House. This bill was a complete re-write of the House version that began in the Senate.

Also, as a tax bill, repealing it falls under different rules.

But, I'm just repeating what I've gleaned from Volokh and other sources. Seems to have been a major shift in the fundamental understanding of what the law is intended to be.

[CosmicCowboy]

What was "re-written"? The SCOTUS is in the business of analyzing laws and seeing how they fit in the constitutional framework, if they fit at all. I don't think even the dissenting judges claimed law was being re-written by the majority (I could be wrong, didn't read the dissenting opinion in it's entirety).

That's a good place to start.

[ElNono]

If you agree the Individual Mandate was the linchpin on which the law lived or died, then technically, the law was transformed from a health care law to a tax bill.

The distinction isn't minor.

I disagree. The law largely deals with healthcare, including ways to regulate and fund it. A lot of laws are exactly the same way, including defense, education, etc.


That's a good place to start.

Actually, the good place to start would be the law. The law doesn't explicitly say the penalty isn't a tax or should interpreted under the commerce clause. Those are simply arguments made to the court. If the penalty does fit within Congress' taxing authority, then it's simply constitutional.

[vy65]

since when does characterizing a law = rewriting a law?

[Yonivore]

Funny but True (https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/218481092582318080):


The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats. ‪#victory‬

Romney Raises $4.6 Million in Obamacare Repeal Push (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304417/romney-raises-46-million-obamacare-repeal-push-katrina-trinko)


Over 47,000 donations were made to Mitt Romney in the past 24 hours, according to Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul — and the total amount given was $4.6 million.

Campaign theme for the next four months:


http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/06/800x560xRAMFclr-062912-liar-COLOR-F.jpg.cms_.jpeg.pagespeed.ic.kcD96JQQgs.jpg

[ElNono]

I'm on record stating that the mandate being upheld will hurt Barry in the elections... said that before the SCOTUS ruled... we'll see...

[Yonivore]

I disagree. The law largely deals with healthcare, including ways to regulate and fund it. A lot of laws are exactly the same way, including defense, education, etc.
Do you disagree the viability of the law hinged on whether or not the individual mandate penalty is a fine or a tax? From what I've read, absent Roberts' "fairly possible" finding for the mandate penalty being a tax, the entire law was set to be struck down.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure anyone has enough knowledge of the contents to have done a re-write.


Actually, the good place to start would be the law. The law doesn't explicitly say the penalty isn't a tax or should interpreted under the commerce clause. Those are simply arguments made to the court. If the penalty does fit within Congress' taxing authority, then it's simply constitutional.
I'm not saying Roberts' "persuasive" application of the "fairly possible" test was unconstitutional. I just find it both odd and ironic that he would use the test to find the individual mandate penalty was something the law's authors and proponents vehemently argued against.

I guess we'll see how the public likes their new tax this November.

[Yonivore]

I'm on record stating that the mandate being upheld will hurt Barry in the elections... said that before the SCOTUS ruled... we'll see...
Duly noted.

[ElNono]

Do you disagree the viability of the law hinged on whether or not the individual mandate penalty is a fine or a tax?

I do disagree. Everybody knew going in that you would need to pay the government a certain amount if you didn't purchase health insurance. We can call that whatever we want, but it's a tax. Just like tolls, passport fees, etc are not called a tax, but they're effectively a tax.

IMO, the viability of the law hinged on whether Congress has the authority to levy taxes if you DON'T do something (ie: enter into a commercial agreement with an insurance company).


I guess we'll see how the public likes their new tax this November.

I don't particularly like this law. Unfortunately, I always had the feeling we had to get to something like this to remove the prior status quo and shake things up.

[Spurminator]

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/06/800x560xRAMFclr-062912-liar-COLOR-F.jpg.cms_.jpeg.pagespeed.ic.kcD96JQQgs.jpg


That cartoon is absolutely layered with comedy. Every time I look at it I find something else funny about it.

The genius is really in its subtlety. You can tell this is the work of a seasoned intellectual artist because it looks nothing like the kinds of pictures 7-year-olds draw of their moms when they're sent to their rooms for punishment.

[FromWayDowntown]

On the second, don't you find it odd Roberts used something called the "fairly possible" test in order to construe the individual mandate penalty into a tax when no one on the side supporting the law saw it that way and, in fact, went to great lengths to assure the American people it wasn't a tax?

Nothing in law obligates a Court to limit its reasoning to the choices proposed by the parties in litigation. It's actually quite frequently true that a Court will consider those arguments and then come to some quite different conclusion about why a case should be decided a particular way.

In this case, I don't really find the conclusion odd, particularly given that the government did, in fact, advance the tax characterization argument as a basis for upholding the mandate throughout the litigation. Even if it hadn't made that argument, it wouldn't be unprecedented for a judge to have reached that conclusion and used that as a basis to conclude that the law was constitutional.

That the politicians who enacted the law chose not to publicly characterize it as a tax certainly doesn't foreclose the possibility that the judicial system would ultimately conclude that the law did, in fact, constitute a valid exercise of taxing power.

[FromWayDowntown]

If you agree the Individual Mandate was the linchpin on which the law lived or died, then technically, the law was transformed from a health care law to a tax bill.

The distinction isn't minor.

I'm sure they'll be re-visiting the origin of the legislation since all tax bills must begin in the House. This bill was a complete re-write of the House version that began in the Senate.

Also, as a tax bill, repealing it falls under different rules.

But, I'm just repeating what I've gleaned from Volokh and other sources. Seems to have been a major shift in the fundamental understanding of what the law is intended to be.

I think that's a pretty silly contention. The characterization of the law as a tax bill doesn't change one word of its statutory text and doesn't create any variance from its original intent. It's simply a matter of constitutional characterization; better yet, it's simply a shorthand for stating the basis for the law's validity.

The law reads the same today as it did three days ago and the Court's majority did absolutely nothing to reconstrue the law's text or to modify any of its provisions. Concluding that there is a different constitutional basis for its validity doesn't change the law in any way whatsoever.

I tend to think that if those procedural issues had any real merit in terms of the law's viability, the advocates who argued against the law would have urged the Court to reject the tax argument because the law was not passed in a manner that would permit that characterization. Alternatively, I think it's quite plausible that Chief Justice Roberts would have seized upon that problem. That those positions do not appear to have been advanced strikes me as pretty solid proof that it would not serve to undermine the law itself.

[FromWayDowntown]

Nothing in law obligates a Court to limit its reasoning to the choices proposed by the parties in litigation. It's actually quite frequently true that a Court will consider those arguments and then come to some quite different conclusion about why a case should be decided a particular way.

And in keeping with the theme of the thread, I'd argue that if a judge finds a basis for an outcome that neither side to the litigation urged, it's not activism on his part. His job is to resolve the pending issue correctly. While the arguments of the litigants should guide that effort, the judge shouldn't be bound by those arguments and only those arguments, particularly in dealing with issues of wide public import rather than those that are limited to a dispute between private litigants.

[FromWayDowntown]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

Jan Crawford's bombshell report that Roberts turned after initially siding with the conservatives who believed the mandate wholly unconstitutional. It's not the substance of the report that makes it a bombshell as much as the fact that Crawford appears to have a source within the Court who is intimately familiar with the deliberations. Insight like that is rarely available so soon after a landmark case is decided (if it is ever made known).

[Nbadan]

I'm on record stating that the mandate being upheld will hurt Barry in the elections... said that before the SCOTUS ruled... we'll see...

I don't think so because there is a 50-50 support/nonsupport for the health care law...this law is broken down by political affiliation already so it's likely to be used by the right to outrage voters who already dislike Obama more-so than to convince political novices, ie independents, into voting for Romney,,.who ironically raised taxes to unprecedented levels in Massachusetts with Romney-care

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think so because there is a 50-50 support/nonsupport for the health care law...this law is broken down by political affiliation already so it's likely to be used by the right to outrage voters who already dislike Obama more-so than to convince political novices, ie independents, into voting for Romney,,.who ironically raised taxes to unprecedented levels in Massachusetts with Romney-care
I'm, pretty sure ElNono is right, that it will hurt Obama during the elections.

[Nbadan]

Larry Sabato, one of the top if not the top political analyst in the nation, says that views on health care are "already baked into the cake" regardless of the ruling.

http://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/218334163378507776

This shows how exaggerated right-wing bloggers are when the try to make themselves feel better by claiming this ruling will knock Obama out of office. Erick Erickson is just one example. Krauthammer of the WAPO was making the same claim recently.

[boutons_deux]

Bob Parry trashes broccoli-scare-monger shill Scalia and other dissenting JINOs.

How Scalia Distorts the Framers

In their angry dissent on June 28, the four wrote: “If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, ‘the hideous monster whose devouring jaws . . . spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor proLuck_The_Fakers_fane.’” They footnoted Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 33.

A portrait of Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull, 1792.

That sounds pretty authoritative, doesn’t it? Here’s Hamilton, one of the strongest advocates for the Constitution, offering a prescient warning about “Obamacare” from the distant past of 1788.

Except that Scalia and his cohorts are misleading you. In Federalist Paper No. 33, Hamilton was not writing about the Commerce Clause. He was referring to clauses in the Constitution that grant Congress the power to make laws that are “necessary and proper” for executing its powers and that establish federal law as “the supreme law of the land.”

Hamilton also wasn’t condemning those powers, as Scalia and his friends would have you believe. Hamilton was defending the two clauses by poking fun at the Anti-Federalist alarmists who had stirred up opposition to the Constitution with warnings about how it would trample America’s liberties.

In the cited section of No. 33, Hamilton is saying the two clauses had been unfairly targeted by “virulent invective and petulant declamation.”

It is in that context that Hamilton complains that the two clauses “have been held up to the people in all the exaggerated colors of misrepresentation as the pernicious engines by which their local governments were to be destroyed and their liberties exterminated; as the hideous monster whose devouring jaws would spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.”

In other words, last week’s dissent from Scalia and the three other right-wingers does not only apply Hamilton’s comments to the wrong section of the Constitution but reverses their meaning. Hamilton was mocking those who were claiming that these clauses would be “the hideous monster.”

However, what Madison’s comments about the Commerce Clause actually demonstrated was a core reality about the Framers – that, by and large, they were practical men seeking to build a strong and unified nation. They also viewed the Constitution as a flexible document designed to meet America’s ever-changing needs, not simply the challenges of the late 18th Century.

As Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 34, “we must bear in mind that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs.

“Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.”

Indeed, the Commerce Clause was a principal power that Madison crafted to deal with commercial challenges both current to his time and future ones that could not be anticipated by his contemporaries.

There also was a reason why the Framers made the power to regulate interstate commerce unlimited. They wanted to invest in the elected representatives the United States the ability to solve future problems.

In Madison’s day, the nation’s challenges included the need for canals and roads that would move goods to market and enable settlers to travel westward into lands that European powers also coveted. Always a principal concern was how European competition could undermine the hard-won independence of the nation.

Though the Framers could not have envisioned the commercial challenges of the modern world, American businesses remain under intense foreign competition today, in part, because of an inefficient health-care system that imposes on U.S. businesses the cost of health insurance that drives up the price of American goods.

Under the current system, not only do many American businesses pay for their employees’ health care – while most other developed nations pay medical bills through general taxation – but U.S. companies indirectly pick up the cost of the uninsured who get emergency care and don’t pay.

So, a law that makes American businesses more competitive by addressing this “free-rider” problem – and by assuring a healthier work force – would seem to be right down the middle of the Framers’ intent in drafting the Commerce Clause.

No Practicality

In contrasting Justice Ginsburg’s opinion on the Affordable Care Act with Scalia’s dissent, one of the most striking differences is how the Framers are understood: Ginsburg sees them as pragmatic problem-solvers, while Scalia envisions them as rigid ideologues placing individual freedom above practical goals.

The core of the Scalia-written dissent is that the Constitution is NOT about solving problems, but rather following the most crimped interpretation of the words. Indeed, he ridicules Ginsburg for viewing the founding document as implicitly intended to give the elected branches of government the flexibility to address national challenges.

Yet, there was little question from either side that virtually every American participates in the commerce of health care – from birth to death – and that the health-insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act was intended by Congress to regulate what is clearly a national market.

In the dissent, the four right-wing justices acknowledged that “Congress has set out to remedy the problem that the best health care is beyond the reach of many Americans who cannot afford it. It can assuredly do that, by exercisLuck_The_Fakers_ing the powers accorded to it under the Constitution.

“The question in this case, however, is whether the complex structures and provisions of the … Affordable Care Act … go beyond those powers. We conclude that they do.”

Scalia noted that Ginsburg “treats the Constitution as though it is an enumeration of those problems that the Federal Government can adLuck_The_Fakers_dress — among which, it finds, is ‘the Nation’s course in the economic and social welfare realm,’ … and more specifically ‘the problem of the uninsured.’

“The Constitution is not that. It enumerates not federally soluble problems, but federally available powers. The Federal Government can address whatever problems it wants but can bring to their solution only those powers that the Constitution confers, among which is the power to regulate commerce.

“None of our cases say anything else. Article I contains no whatever-it-takes-to-solve-a-national-Luck_The_Fakers_problem power.”

The right-wing justices insisted that the power to “regulate” commerce couldn’t possibly cover something like a mandate to buy health insurance.

Scalia and Roberts also adopted a very narrow concept of participation in the health-care industry. Though it’s undeniable that virtually all Americans – from birth to death – receive medical care of various types and at different times, the Court’s five right-wing justices treated the gaps between those events as meaning people are no longer in the health market.

Roberts wrote: “An individual who bought a car two years ago and may buy another in the future is not ‘active in the car market’ in any pertinent sense. The phrase ‘active in the market’ cannot obscure the fact that most of those regulated by the individual mandate are not currently engaged in any commercial activity involving health care, and that fact is fatal to the Government’s effort to ‘regulate the uninsured as a class.’”

But, as Ginsburg noted in her opinion, this comparison is off-point, because a person can plan for the purchase of a car but often is thrust into the medical industry by an accident or an unexpected illness.

Over and over again, the five right-wing justices behaved as if they started out with a determination to reject a constitutional justification under the Commerce Clause and then dreamt up legal wording to surround their preconceived conclusion.

In doing so, they treated the Constitution as some finicky legal document rather than what the Framers had intended, a vibrant structure for solving national problems.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/07/04/how-scalia-distorts-the-framers/

[scott]

Federal Judge Richard Posner: The GOP Has Made Me Less Conservative


Judge Richard Posner, a conservative on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, has long been one of the nation's most respected and admired legal thinkers on the right. But in an interview with NPR, he expressed exasperation at the modern Republican Party, and confessed that he has become "less conservative" as a result.

Posner expressed admiration for President Ronald Reagan and the economist Milton Friedman, two pillars of conservatism. But over the past 10 years, Posner said, "there's been a real deterioration in conservative thinking. And that has to lead people to re-examine and modify their thinking."

"I've become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy," he said.

Posner, who was appointed to the appeals court by Reagan, speculated that the leaks about the deliberations over the national health care law — which are apparently designed to discredit Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion upholding the law — would backfire. "I think these right-wingers who are blasting Roberts are making a very serious mistake," he said.


"Because if you put [yourself] in his position ... what's he supposed to think? That he finds his allies to be a bunch of crackpots? Does that help the conservative movement? I mean, what would you do if you were Roberts? All the sudden you find out that the people you thought were your friends have turned against you, they despise you, they mistreat you, they leak to the press. What do you do? Do you become more conservative? Or do you say, 'What am I doing with this crowd of lunatics?' Right? Maybe you have to re-examine your position."

In addition to his work as an appeals court judge, Posner is the author of more than three dozen books on subjects ranging from law and economics to aging and literature.



http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/07/05/156319272/federal-judge-richard-posner-the-gop-has-made-me-less-conservative?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw

[boutons_deux]

Posner sounds like a serious person. I had a suspicion there were still some adult, serious conservatives somewhere. He makes it a crowd of one.

[redzero]

Funny coming from somebody whose posts are full of lame nicknames and insults.