Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/29/2012 7:35:01 AM PDT by Sopater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Sopater
Tie vote - the ruling of the lower court is upheld. 



Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

2 posted on 06/29/2012 7:40:37 AM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sopater

A tie would have allowed the Law to stand as is which would have validated the mandate under the Commerce Clause in lieu of it being labled a Tax.


3 posted on 06/29/2012 7:40:49 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sopater

Would it have been thrown out 4-3-1. At that point Roberts might have flipped to be 5-3.

As you had 4 for total repeal, 3 for commerce clause is groovy, and Roberts as for it but not the commerce clause.


6 posted on 06/29/2012 7:57:39 AM PDT by NeoCaveman ("If I had a son he'd look like B.O.'s lunch" - Rin Tin Tin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sopater

Ha, as if. She was appointed for a reason. It wasn’t just happenstance. She did her job as she was told.


8 posted on 06/29/2012 7:58:57 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sopater

First of all, it wouldn’t have been called a case of the court proving its neutrality, and second of all, one of the other conservative justices would have crossed the aisle in the name of neutrality, and teaching the American people a lesson in representative Democracy. That’s their job these days.


9 posted on 06/29/2012 7:59:39 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sopater

Could someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe CJ Roberts could have asked her to recuse herself. Then had he voted in the majority the Constitution could have been upheld with a nice 5-3 vote.


12 posted on 06/29/2012 8:15:23 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sopater

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/kagan-sits-judgment-obamacare-despite-cheering-its-passage-and-assigning-lawyer-defend

(CNSNews.com) - When the Supreme Court on Monday began hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA “Obamacare”—Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan showed up to hear the arguments and gave no indication she would recuse herself from judging the cases even though she had cheered enactment of Obamacare as an Obama political appointee and had personally assigned her top deputy in the Obama Justice Department to defend the law in federal court.

A federal law, 28 USC 455, says a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

Laws? We don’t need no steenkin’ laws!


13 posted on 06/29/2012 8:32:53 AM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sopater

What would have happened if McCain and Palin had won?


15 posted on 06/29/2012 9:14:31 AM PDT by NoLibZone (We must get down on our knees each day and thank God that McCain/Palin didn't win in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson