The scary part about yesterday's ruling

[NJMaverick]

Robert's justification of supporting the constitution and not throwing out Healthcare reform was a very brilliant point. Since a fine could be considered a tax, there is no way Congress doesn't have a right to tax people who put a burden on the government by not carrying healthcare insurance (when they can afford to do so). While the Commerce clause also works, the tax argument simply can't be beat or argued against.

What's scary though is the 4 wild eyed radical judges that opposed that argument. Not only did those 4 defy the logic that a financial penalty on those that don't buy insurance is nothing more than a tax, they actually declared that they have the right to strike down any law they don't like regardless of the Constitution. If that doesn't send a chill down the spine of every freedom loving and democracy loving American, nothing will.

[jaxx]

One huge reason President Obama must be reelected......the Supreme Court. Up to 3 of them may retire.

[sandnsea]

I think we also have to remember that Roberts & Kennedy disagreed with the Commerce argument of the legislation. I haven't read the opinion, but it's strange to me that they could say Congress doesn't have the power to regulate Commerce across borders, which is part of the rationale behind federal gun laws I believe, and EPA regulation. Obviously much more complicated. Is the Commerce argument not valid just because that argument went 5-4 the other way? (I'm assuming, I could be wrong)

I haven't read enough historical dissenting opinions. Maybe it's always been this drastically split. But it's sure sad to me that there are so few people who can look squarely at the law and Constitution and interpret it consistently and honorably.

[Velleity]

(06-29-2012 09:06 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  Robert's justification of supporting the constitution and not throwing out Healthcare reform was a very brilliant point. Since a fine could be considered a tax, there is no way Congress doesn't have a right to tax people who put a burden on the government by not carrying healthcare insurance (when they can afford to do so). While the Commerce clause also works, the tax argument simply can't be beat or argued against.

What's scary though is the 4 wild eyed radical judges that opposed that argument. Not only did those 4 defy the logic that a financial penalty on those that don't buy insurance is nothing more than a tax, they actually declared that they have the right to strike down any law they don't like regardless of the Constitution. If that doesn't send a chill down the spine of every freedom loving and democracy loving American, nothing will.

As a practicing attorney handling trial matters and appeals, I can tell you that when it comes down to it the judges can generally do whatever they damn please. And more often than not that's exactly what they do.

[NJMaverick]

(06-29-2012 01:02 PM)Velleity Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 09:06 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  Robert's justification of supporting the constitution and not throwing out Healthcare reform was a very brilliant point. Since a fine could be considered a tax, there is no way Congress doesn't have a right to tax people who put a burden on the government by not carrying healthcare insurance (when they can afford to do so). While the Commerce clause also works, the tax argument simply can't be beat or argued against.

What's scary though is the 4 wild eyed radical judges that opposed that argument. Not only did those 4 defy the logic that a financial penalty on those that don't buy insurance is nothing more than a tax, they actually declared that they have the right to strike down any law they don't like regardless of the Constitution. If that doesn't send a chill down the spine of every freedom loving and democracy loving American, nothing will.

As a practicing attorney handling trial matters and appeals, I can tell you that when it comes down to it the judges can generally do whatever they damn please. And more often than not that's exactly what they do.

Sadly I can't argue with that. It certainly seems a judge that is dedicated to law and justice, rather than pursuing an ideological or personal agenda is all too rare.

[Velleity]

(06-29-2012 01:06 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 01:02 PM)Velleity Wrote:  As a practicing attorney handling trial matters and appeals, I can tell you that when it comes down to it the judges can generally do whatever they damn please. And more often than not that's exactly what they do.

Sadly I can't argue with that. It certainly seems a judge that is dedicated to law and justice, rather than pursuing an ideological or personal agenda is all too rare.

Face it Mav, we are not objective creatures. We are highly subjective creatures trying to be objective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/...wanted=all

So maybe it's not as venal as you may be making it out to be. Maybe it's just the objective reality that we're not really objective? And a lot of the legal reasoning is mental masturbation.