A Kick in the Stomach
Peter Robinson ·
June 28, 2012 at 6:02pm
I'd heard plenty of predictions that, if the vote were 5-4 to uphold, Chief Justice John Roberts would join the liberal majority, making the vote 6-3, but only doing so to write the opinion, keeping it as narrow as possible. I'd never heard anyone reputable or knowledgeable suggest that that Chief Justice would join the liberal minority to cast the deciding vote. Yet that is just what the Chief Justice has done. Justice Kennedy now looks like a pillar of rectitude and right reason by comparison.
Sickening. Just sickening.
- Comment (70)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Joseph Stanko
Guruforhire:
We may not like its effects, but I think that the Roberts opinion is pretty solid.
I'm a little hesitant to admit it, I'm almost afraid I'll get kicked out of Ricochet, but I listened to the oral arguments back when and came to the same conclusion Roberts did: the mandate is a tax.
It's collected by the IRS. If it looks like a tax and quacks like a tax, it's a tax. And unfortunately under the XVI Amendment Congress has pretty much unlimited power to tax income. · 4 minutes ago
Unwise, immoral, and improper are not the same as unconstitutional
May '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Guruforhire: I want you to stop and consider that we got the entire liberal minority to sign a decision that limited the commerce clause. · 17 minutes ago
Edited 16 minutes ago
Oh, really? I want you to stop and read Justice Ginsburg's concurrence, in which all four liberals join, and in which Justice Ginsburg begins, "Unlike the Chief Justice, however, I would hold, alternatively, that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact the minimum coverage provision." Now explain to me how we won anything?
Dec '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Matthew Gilley
Guruforhire: I want you to stop and consider that we got the entire liberal minority to sign a decision that limited the commerce clause. · 17 minutes ago
Edited 16 minutes ago
Oh, really? I want you to stop and read Justice Ginsburg's concurrence, in which all four liberals join, and in which Justice Ginsburg begins, "Unlike the Chief Justice, however, I would hold, alternatively, that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact the minimum coverage provision." Now explain to me how we won anything? · 3 minutes ago
The decision written by roberts is what dictates how congress has to behave.
May '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Consider the possibility that Roberts was following the law instead of a desired outcome. Repealing bad law is responsibility of Congress, not SCOTUS. Santa didn't come and take the whole nightmare away, so we find that we need to do the hard work of fixing the system, hard work that conservatives have negligently ignored for decades Here is what Roberts said:
1) Lopez wins- you can't twist the Commerce Clause into a pretzel to justify anything you want to do; no forcing a citizen to do something based on some vague relationship to "commerce".
2) You, Obama, swore that this wasn't a tax. You lied. If it looks like a tax, walks like a tax, is collected like a tax, and quacks like a tax, it is a cute ducky little tax even if you pretend it isn't. There is unfortunately little argument (since about 1940) that the government can't do this via a tax.
3) You can't force expensive expansions of programs onto the states and then take away all their previous money if they don't buy the new expansion.
Two critical new rules and one giant campaign theme provided.
Dec '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Quit the moping. It is not a kick in the stomach but a kick in the pants. It was said of the British Army that they lost every battle but the last one. So we had a little setback today, no one said it was going to be easy. This was like "political Botox". It took away every "wrinkle" for conservatives not supporting Romney away.
Let's not dread this decision but let it be like the Dred decision that brought about change. Victory is in sight.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 6:40pmOct '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Guruforhire
Joseph Stanko
Guruforhire:
We may not like its effects, but I think that the Roberts opinion is pretty solid.
I'm a little hesitant to admit it, I'm almost afraid I'll get kicked out of Ricochet, but I listened to the oral arguments back when and came to the same conclusion Roberts did: the mandate is a tax.
It's collected by the IRS. If it looks like a tax and quacks like a tax, it's a tax. And unfortunately under the XVI Amendment Congress has pretty much unlimited power to tax income. · 4 minutes ago
Unwise, immoral, and improper are not the same as unconstitutional · 6 minutes ago
There was a time when the Constitution was a document meant to be understood by us common, non-JD post-graduates.
Wise, moral, and proper were the same as Constitutional
Jun '12
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
I would not easily come to the conclusion that Roberts did anything other than uphold the constitutionality of an apparently constitutional law.
We, indeed all Americans, took one in the teeth as political events starting in 2008 have finally played out. What are we going to do about it? Bear in mind that because of the revenue aspects of the bill this will not be repealed unless there are fewer than 40 democrats in the Senate in 2013.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 6:41pmMay '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Guruforhire
Matthew Gilley
Guruforhire: I want you to stop and consider that we got the entire liberal minority to sign a decision that limited the commerce clause. · 17 minutes ago
Edited 16 minutes ago
Oh, really? I want you to stop and read Justice Ginsburg's concurrence, in which all four liberals join, and in which Justice Ginsburg begins, "Unlike the Chief Justice, however, I would hold, alternatively, that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact the minimum coverage provision." Now explain to me how we won anything? · 3 minutes ago
The decision written by roberts is what dictates how congress has to behave. · 1 minute ago
No, Article I dictates how Congress has to behave.
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Guruforhire: Peter I appeal to you to actually read the decision. We won the arguement. The commerce clause cannot be read to do what the government wanted to do. Also looking at his ruling on the tax issue it appears that whether or not the tax is constitutional seems to be pretty solidly constitutional and consistant going ALL the way back to the presidency of Madison. · 29 minutes ago
Edited 27 minutes ago
Fair enough to ask me to read the opinion, which I'll do over the weekend. We're taping the weekly podcast right now, though, and both John Yoo and Richard Epstein, both of whom have pored over the opinion, consider it a complete disaster. Both John and Richard agree that it places no limit on the commerce clause whatsoever. "We can still do whatever we used to be able to do under the commerce clause," as Richard put it, "as long as we call it a 'tax.' We have a bigger government now than we did 24 hours ago."
Sep '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
The AIA doesn't apply because it's not a tax. But it's constitutional because it is a tax. Huh?
Dec '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Peter Robinson
Guruforhire: Peter I appeal to you to actually read the decision. We won the arguement. The commerce clause cannot be read to do what the government wanted to do. Also looking at his ruling on the tax issue it appears that whether or not the tax is constitutional seems to be pretty solidly constitutional and consistant going ALL the way back to the presidency of Madison. · 29 minutes ago
Edited 27 minutes ago
Fair enough to ask me to read the opinion, which I'll do over the weekend. We're taping the weekly podcast right now, though, and both John Yoo and Richard Epstein, both of whom have pored over the opinion, consider it a complete disaster. Both John and Richard agree that it places no limit on the commerce clause whatsoever. "We can still do whatever we used to be able to do under the commerce clause," as Richard put it, "as long as we call it a 'tax.' We have a bigger government now than we did 24 hours ago."
That is a seperate problem, and one going back much longer than our tortured commerce clause.
Mar '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
With all due respect, that's utterly delusional. If Roberts had voted the other way, the exact same conclusion about the commerce clause would have been in place, and the law would have been struck down in its entirety. It's impossible to spin this as anything other than total defeat.
It *might* have positive political side effects for future elections, but that's a big if. In the meantime, it's a certain loss in the here and now.
May '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Come on, Duane - don't be fast and loose here with your words. The law was not before the Court because it was a "bad law" as a matter of policy; the states and NFIB challenged it on very compelling grounds that the statute unconstitutionally exceeded the federal government's enumerated powers. And, in the end, to quote the dissent, "The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write," and used grounds the government disavowed and which the Solicitor General avoided like the plague.
May '12
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Guruforhire
Matthew Gilley
Guruforhire: I want you to stop and consider that we got the entire liberal minority to sign a decision that limited the commerce clause. · 17 minutes ago
Edited 16 minutes ago
Oh, really? I want you to stop and read Justice Ginsburg's concurrence, in which all four liberals join, and in which Justice Ginsburg begins, "Unlike the Chief Justice, however, I would hold, alternatively, that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact the minimum coverage provision." Now explain to me how we won anything? · 3 minutes ago
The decision written by roberts is what dictates how congress has to behave. · 11 minutes ago
Congress doesn't behave according the Constitution, isn't that how we got here to begin with? I am not sure I share your optimism that Congrress will suddenly find religion in Roberts' opinion.
Jun '12
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Guruforhire: I want you to stop and consider that we got the entire liberal minority to sign a decision that limited the commerce clause. · 17 minutes ago
Edited 16 minutes ago
There was a saying back when I was a kid that covers this nicely..."That and a quarter will buy you a cup of coffee."
They signed it, and the next time a commerce clause comes up, they will completely ignore it.
May '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Roberts is on the side of tyrants. Most of our leaders side with tyrants.
Nov '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Somehow knowing Kennedy would have voted to take the whole thing down makes it worse.
I'm seeing split opinions on the whole commerce clause/tax issue. Apparently they limited the commerce clause somewhat (good) but let taxing power stretch to include almost anything (very bad). I'm not sure I understand it all -- but if it's really an even exchange -- i.e. Congress can do anything it wants but has to justify it as a tax rather than as regulating commerce -- then that would do nothing to limit them constitutionally, but would possibly make it harder politically to pass monstrosities such as Obamacare.
Feb '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Since September 12, 2001 I have been flying an American flag in front of my house. I am going to replace with the Gadsden flag.
Feb '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Valin
Guruforhire: I want you to stop and consider that we got the entire liberal minority to sign a decision that limited the commerce clause. · 17 minutes ago
Edited 16 minutes ago
There was a saying back when I was a kid that covers this nicely..."That and a quarter will buy you a cup of coffee."
They signed it, and the next time a commerce clause comes up, they will completely ignore it. · 14 minutes ago
Exactly.
Jul '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Supreme Court/Death Panel
Death Panel/Supreme Court