It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.




Charles Krauthammer: Why Roberts did it - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/2012/06/28/gJQA4X0g9V_story.html)

Choosing a $695 penalty over health insurance? That's a choice, not a denial of liberty.
ROBERTS is the swing vote F##KING PRICELESS. Suck on that.

Choosing a $695 penalty over health insurance? That's a choice, not a denial of liberty.
ROBERTS is the swing vote F##KING PRICELESS. Suck on that.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you're done with your copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People. Any chance I can borrow it, I think I may need to brush up on my skills?

That said, don't most denials of liberty present as choices? Certainly those imposed by (democratic) governments, no? Oh, and one more thing... you've no doubt read the bill, so you realize that the penalty would be a lot more than $695 for many people, right?

Choosing a $695 penalty over health insurance? That's a choice, not a denial of liberty.
ROBERTS is the swing vote F##KING PRICELESS. Suck on that.

More proof that you are an ignoramus. You obviously side with those who think the Obamination of this "HealthCare" travesty is constitutional. And yet, you resort to comments that are vulgar & vitriolic, which tells me you are not capable of civil discourse in any debate. :yay:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you're done with your copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People. Any chance I can borrow it, I think I may need to brush up on my skills?



I'm guessing you didn't see the tweets from the tolerant left that said things like "take that, m**********rs" and "suck it, #####es, it's constitutional".

Remember, these are the ones who think the press has been brutal on Obama while having treated Bush with kid gloves.

ROBERTS is the swing vote F##KING PRICELESS.

Jaw-dropping, isn't it?

My BIL lawyer was telling me (in short) last night that the SC is supposed to find out if a law, is in any way, constitutional, and rule accordingly. Even if it was not the case that was argued in front of them. Now, I'm a bit of a simpleton on such things, so I may have misunderstood him; can anyone here confirm that?

My BIL lawyer was telling me (in short) last night that the SC is supposed to find out if a law, is in any way, constitutional, and rule accordingly. Even if it was not the case that was argued in front of them. Now, I'm a bit of a simpleton on such things, so I may have misunderstood him; can anyone here confirm that?

Yeah, that's generally correct. The Supreme Court is supposed to be deferential to Congress (at least, that's long been its position) and, if there's a way to construe laws that would make them Constitutional, uphold them based on it. They're not supposed to be looking for ways to strike a law down, they're supposed to be looking for ways to (legitimately) uphold it as constitutional (again, that's long been the Court's general operative framework). Of course, if it does violate the constitution - if there's no authority to be found in the constitution for it, or if it clearly violates one of the prohibitions in the constitution - then they're supposed to throw it out.

As for a particular argument not being raised before the Court, that's a little trickier issue I think. I think it depends on context, but ultimately the Court does what it feels like doing (read: what 5 members are willing to vote for). The question doesn't really apply here though because the taxing power argument was made by the government (at oral arguments, in briefing for the Supreme Court, and to the lower courts).

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.




Charles Krauthammer: Why Roberts did it - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/2012/06/28/gJQA4X0g9V_story.html)

I actually believe that CJ Roberts gave the republicans and the nation a chance to change things around by re-iterating that this is a tax, not an entitlement.
I believe he also said, not word for word, that the Supreme Court is not responsible for the actions of people(voting for the wrong officials in office), and the consequences of their actions.

I actually believe that CJ Roberts gave the republicans and the nation a chance to change things around by re-iterating that this is a tax, not an entitlement.
I believe he also said, not word for word, that the Supreme Court is not responsible for the actions of people(voting for the wrong officials in office), and the consequences of their actions.

I agree with you. It does give the people a chance to change things around and realize were we are going, but it is one very large boulder already rolling down a hill. To stop it, I feel, will take a miracle of God. There are just so many factors reducing friction, increasing the force from behind, and the slope has been down for the last 60 years. (at least, that is what I have read anyway....I'm not old enough to have been there myself)