It's not like that puppet Roberts hasn't been sending out signals. [Read]
Anybody think it's mere coincidence that the contempt vote will be cast while all eyes are focused elsewhere?
This certainly doesn't help the "You must vote Republican because of Supreme Court nominees" argument.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This court has already shown its disdain for the Constitution in Kelo vs. New London, so no, I'm not surprised. I WAS surprised that the court agreed that the 2A was an individual right in Heller vs. D.C., but not at the way they left it vulnerable to be infringed into something unrecognizable.
They may have said they believe it is an individual right, but there is still a whole bunch of disarmament legislation on the books under the umbrella of "interstate commerce". (That's the catch-all of flatly illegal legislation.) Speaking of that clause...
Casting it in terms of a "tax" was a surprise.
Otherwise ... no, not so much.
Setting the mandate as a tax was a surprise. Otherwise ... not so much.
Actually legally I thought it was a decent decision. I'm glad they chose not to bring it under the commerce clause. After reading the text of the decision, calling it a tax is a fairly convincing argument given previous precedent. Bad policy no doubt, but constitutionally not so clear.
The court called it a tax, then tapdanced over their own spilled entrails as their own opinion invalidates their arguments calling it a legal, precidented tax.
They admit it's a direct tax and unapportioned, then wave their arms and call it legal in spite of contradicting themselves earlier in the opinion.
The guts are in pages 41-45.
-PG
Congressman Gus Bilirakis [R] Florida is polling his constituents for their opinion (more than 2:1 against the decision so far):
http://bilirakis.congressnewsletter.net/mail/util.cfm?returnmsg=formsubmit&formid=6
They're not supreme because they're right, they're right because they're supreme.
We now reside in a country NOT under rule of law.
Act accordingly.
We have not been under Rule of Law for quite some time now, Anonymous at 6/28/2012 8:00 PM.
I'm not so sure that what Roberts did was such a bad deal. This may be his way of letting Obama cut is own throat by declaring the fee for not complying with the mandate a "tax". Obama has been insisting al;l along that the penalty would not be a tax, and ... now it is. Remember what happened to George H.W. "one-term" "read my lips" when he implemented additional taxes. Obama may just have pooped his mess kit when he belittled the Court during his state of the union address and then threatened the Court when it appeared that Obama-care was going to be found unconstitutional? My guess is Roberts didn't forget or forgive. This tax will probably be Obama's death knell. Romney is already promising to strive to repeal the act and everybody who us running under the republican banner is talking tea party and repeal. The democrats and their fearless leader may just have let Roberts shoot them in the foot. If what I believe is true (and I could be wrong) I think it's funny as hell that the old fart conned Sotomayor and Kegan into going along with the plan.
[W3]
Post a Comment