1billsfan Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 it's all politics. i'm just saying the current dems are more capable gamers than back then. we'll see.... The ultimate decision on Obamatax will be made in November. Be there or be square.
Duck_dodgers007 Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 The ultimate decision on Obamatax will be made in November. Be there or be square. Romney will destroy it? Ha! That's funny
birdog1960 Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 The ultimate decision on Obamatax will be made in November. Be there or be square. i'll be there.
1billsfan Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Romney will destroy it? Ha! That's funny He said it'd be the first thing he would do. Far fetched to think he wouldn't follow through. But hey, you're free to believe what you want to believe...that is, unless the government coerces you into thinking differently through taxation. Edited June 28, 2012 by 1billsfan
Wacka Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Dow doen ~160 pts at 2:45 PM EDT. Dropped 100 points in minutes about 11 AM, right after the announcement.
Duck_dodgers007 Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 He said it'd be the first thing he would do. Far fetched to think he wouldn't follow through. But hey, you're free to believe what you want to believe...that is, unless the government coerces you into thinking differently through taxation. He'll flip flop again, he always has.
Adam Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) He said it'd be the first thing he would do. Far fetched to think he wouldn't follow through. But hey, you're free to believe what you want to believe...that is, unless the government coerces you into thinking differently through taxation. It would be interesting to see a study in about 10 years if it stands- Did we pay more for other people's health care before or after. Edited June 28, 2012 by Adam
Duck_dodgers007 Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 It would be interesting to see a study in about 10 years if it stands- Did we pay more for other people's health care before or after. Or are we more free now than before? This is an unconstitutional take over of the health care system, I hope the folks over at the Federalist Society really lay into Roberts the way Limbaugh did this afternoon. Just shameful!
Adam Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Or are we more free now than before? This is an unconstitutional take over of the health care system, I hope the folks over at the Federalist Society really lay into Roberts the way Limbaugh did this afternoon. Just shameful! Wrong- you don't like it, and I have no problem with you not liking it (don't read into that statement, I'm not trying to piss you off). The fact is that the Supreme Court found it constitutional, because it is. Good or bad policy doesn't determine constitutionality. As far as Judge Roberts goes, he should find what an entertainer or political organization thinks about his decision, quite irrelevant. Edited June 28, 2012 by Adam
Juror#8 Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Or are we more free now than before? This is an unconstitutional take over of the health care system, I hope the folks over at the Federalist Society really lay into Roberts the way Limbaugh did this afternoon. Just shameful! It's not the court's job to make policy. They have a very defined role to interpret the law. Roberts interpreted the law consistent with his judicial philosophy and his expert legal knowledge. Because it may not have jived with his political identification (or yours) is of no consequence to a judicial officer. Or do you feel that he should have been an activist and interpreted the law more broadly and, consequently, consistent with his political affiliation? Should a judge arrive at a result, and then create their reasoning to embrace that result? Is that the way that the law should operate? Pride of Buffalo he is...
Joe Miner Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 It's not the court's job to make policy. They have a very defined role to interpret the law. Roberts interpreted the law consistent with his judicial philosophy and his expert legal knowledge. Because it may not have jived with his political identification (or yours) is of no consequence to a judicial officer. Or do you feel that he should have been an activist and interpreted the law more broadly and, consequently, consistent with his political affiliation? Should a judge arrive at a result, and then create their reasoning to embrace that result? Is that the way that the law should operate? Pride of Buffalo he is... I like how the only 2 choices you listed are: He judges the law correctly and fairly and it is upheld, or He votes political party lines and the law is overturned. Good thing those were his only 2 options.
Duck_dodgers007 Posted June 28, 2012 Author Posted June 28, 2012 Wrong- you don't like it, and I have no problem with you not liking it (don't read into that statement, I'm not trying to piss you off). The fact is that the Supreme Court found it constitutional, because it is. Good or bad policy doesn't determine constitutionality. As far as Judge Roberts goes, he should find what an entertainer or political organization thinks about his decision, quite irrelevant. It's only "constitutional" because Roberts said it was, Scalia, Alberto, Kennedy and Thomas said no. Romney and Roberts, two birds of the same feather. Who will Romney appoint to the SC, a Scalia or a Roberts? Ya, think about it.
dayman Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Wrong- you don't like it, and I have no problem with you not liking it (don't read into that statement, I'm not trying to piss you off). The fact is that the Supreme Court found it constitutional, because it is. Good or bad policy doesn't determine constitutionality. As far as Judge Roberts goes, he should find what an entertainer or political organization thinks about his decision, quite irrelevant. Yup. And everybody needs to accept that. As is said the Supreme Court is not final b/c it is infallible...it is infallible b/c it is final.
Juror#8 Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I like how the only 2 choices you listed are: He judges the law correctly and fairly and it is upheld, or He votes political party lines and the law is overturned. Good thing those were his only 2 options. I like them too. I like them more because they happen to be correct in this instance. But I'll play along...what are the other options? Wouldn't you presume that he interpreted the law - especially since his interpretation was inconsistent with his broad scale and known political affiliation? And if you agree with the above, and his interpretation led him to that conclusion, wouldn't choosing a different result, but along the some interpretive lines, be results driven and in an effort to stay in line with political ideology?
Adam Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 It's only "constitutional" because Roberts said it was, Scalia, Alberto, Kennedy and Thomas said no. Romney and Roberts, two birds of the same feather. Who will Romney appoint to the SC, a Scalia or a Roberts? Ya, think about it. It is Constitutional, because the majority of judges confirmed it as such. You may disagree with it being a good law, but it is a constitutional one. Our system may be broken, but I find it preferable to much of what I see around the world.
PTS Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/the-political-genius-of-john-roberts/ After Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes deftly beat back Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s court-packing proposal, FDR said, with grudging admiration, that Hughes was the best politician in the country. “That was hardly the way Hughes would have chosen to be remembered,” writes James Simon in “FDR and Chief Justice Hughes,” “though there was much truth in the president’s remark.” I doubt Roberts wants to be known for his political skills, either. But in today’s decision, he showed that, like Hughes before him, he’s got those skills in spades. The decision today is being reported as 5-4, with Roberts voting with the liberals. Akhil Reid Amar, a constitutional scholar at Yale Law, sees it differently. “The decision was 4-1-4,” he said. http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/06/28/obamacare-ruling/ Roberts is looking across the table at us now. He has to trust that the electorate and Congress will look at the cards and play correctly to win the hand and ultimately the game. He can’t signal us with a kick under the table or tap out a strategy with his pen or convey in any fashion what he meant by his play. Play now moves to us. He has given us clarity: Obama lies, taxes rise. Repeat that loudly. Two very interesting ways of looking at what Roberts did.
Rob's House Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 gee, i'm shocked....probably devised by the same hacks who thought up swiftboating. but this time, i'm betting the other side is prepared. So calling a duck a duck is an underhanded tactic if the duck's dad insists it's a swan?
BRAWNDO Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Another interesting fact I have not seen discussed is the fact that Elena Kagan, one of the justices in the majority worked as the Solicitor General for Obama during the passage of Obamacare. Shouldn't she have recused herself from this case as she did with the immigration ruling?
Joe Miner Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I like them too. I like them more because they happen to be correct in this instance. But I'll play along...what are the other options? Wouldn't you presume that he interpreted the law - especially since his interpretation was inconsistent with his broad scale and known political affiliation? And if you agree with the above, and his interpretation led him to that conclusion, wouldn't choosing a different result, but along the some interpretive lines, be results driven and in an effort to stay in line with political ideology? You play dense so well, one must wonder how much you're really playing.
Koko78 Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 Another interesting fact I have not seen discussed is the fact that Elena Kagan, one of the justices in the majority worked as the Solicitor General for Obama during the passage of Obamacare. Shouldn't she have recused herself from this case as she did with the immigration ruling? She wouldn't recuse herself unless she actually worked on a case dealing with Obamacare. It's not relevant that she worked for Obama during its passage.
Recommended Posts