Two Years On: Obamacare

Show me a liberal Justice who would ever write such a decision. The idea of a liberal Justice agreeing to vote for a law they disagreed with, for the purposes of "consensus", with a caveat that the Congress "agree" not to pass such a law in the future is ludicrous.

Neither Congress nor future Courts would be bound by such a ruling.

People must think Roberts is a fucking idiot. You think he's going to give Congress a mulligan on this one, and hope they don't do it again?

The guy has kids. Give an inch, they take a mile.

If Roberts has issues with the law, he's going to vote to strike it down.

 

After spending six pages giving a doctoral dissertation on the 18th century American Heritage Dictionary definition of "tax," and another seven on the American Heritage Dictionary's 18th century definition of "income."

 

They do it all the time.

Basically: "Let this be a warning to you, this is about as far as we are willing to stretch this."

 

I don't recall Al Gore Sr., or his son changing their registration.

Who are you referring to?

Robert Byrd maybe? No, he died a Democrat.

This is the dumbest theory ever. Dumber than Roberts voting against his conscience.

 

Again, I suspect you and Justice Roberts have vastly different ideas of the job he holds.

Justices vote for things they have problems with all the time -- and then spell out those problems in concurrences. They vote against things they agree with, sometimes, too, and write dissents.

That's part of being a justice.

He's not basing his vote solely on whether he agrees with the law as a matter of public policy.

 

If they believe a law has come up to the line of what's allowable -- not if they think it crosses the line.

Folks are suggesting that Roberts would "switch" his vote if Kennedy votes to uphold. Is anyone speculating that Roberts would join a 5-4 decision to uphold, and would write a narrow decision?

So, basically Roberts is just going to tie his vote to Kennedy's? (Assuming Scallia votes to strike down the law.)

That makes Roberts Kennedy's lap dog, not a consensus builder.

 

Which nobody suggests he is going to do.

 

They frequently think that laws may cross the line, but uphold them regardless. Because, again, the default is to uphold. Congress gets a tremendous deal of deference from the Court. The Court realizes that it is not democratically elected, and would prefer that policy is handled by elected officials who are directly accountable to the public.

 

Gore Sr., Gore Jr. and Byrd are all ours.

Yup, when your party needs to keep blacks on the plantation, you have to come up with a lot of shit to obfuscate.

 

Dumbest theory ever? I guess the dumbest theory ever is only supported by every electoral and political science theory advanced on the topic.

The voting bloc in the South, which by and large supported Jim Crow and which was once solidly Democratic, now votes solidly GOP. This is absolutely inarguable.

As for the politicians you mentioned, Robert Byrd has apologized for his pro-Jim Crow ways of his early political career. He changed with the times and was hardly some racist carnival barker in the last half of his time in the Senate.

(Gore Sr. wasn't in office in my political memory. When the hell was the last time he was in office?)

Unlike, say, Strom Thurmond, who was eagerly accepted by the GOP and who never wavered from his racist legacy.

But I'm done arguing the obvious. I'm screwing up Zeke's perfectly legit thread.

And for the record, if it goes 5-4 against the mandate, you won't hear me barking about activist judges.

While I support the law, especially from a philosophical standpoint, even I'd admit that it's flawed as passed. Such is life with political gridlock and parties voting against their own interests to screw the other.

 

I will do the barking for the both of us. Not that I'm worried.

I will also be barking at the administration/Congress for not calling this what it is: A tax.

 

Unless I missed something, all of the speculation about Roberts voting to uphold, and writing a narrow decision, is contingent on Kennedy (and possibly Scallia) voting to uphold.

If Roberts believed in deferring to Congress, yet writing a narrow decision, it won't matter how Kennedy votes. The case is already decided.

That's the flaw in this theory. It supposes that Roberts will follow Kennedy. That would make him the weakest Chief in the history of the Court.