Posted on 06/21/2012 2:58:37 AM PDT by Perdogg
Today the court is handing down decisions, possibly in the Arizona Immigration Law case.
Make your Prediction on:
1. Az Immigration law
2a. Heathcare Mandate
2b. Heathcare Servability
3. Stolen Valor Act
My understanding is that she, as a high-level DOJ employee help to vet (such as rabid Democrats would do) the proposed legislation before she was nominated for the seat. I could be wrong on this but this is what I remember hearing.
To my mind, her involvement then, would preclude her deciding on any portion of the law.
Lastly, I am fully for STATE nullification of Federal Laws that are not specifically traced to a CLEAR WRITTEN reading of the US Consitution. As far as I’m concerned, this Federal Government is our enemy and not to be trusted or supported.
Mandate is 5-4 due to unconstitutionality, but libs will vote lib.
Non-Severability is, in the long run, made necessary by the lack of funding when the mandate disappears. Political decision again = 5-4.
A fox (gov't) to guard the hen house (America). The fox must also be guarded by the owners (us) who put it there because the fox is capable of chewing through his restraints and killing the hens. Well the owners have done a lousy job of checking the fox and the hens are in mortal danger.
From your lips to Gods ears!
Amen!
Roberts
Scalia
Kennedy
Thomas
Alito
Ginsburg
Breyer
Sotomayor
Kagan
Is this how you are breaking it down?
“I can see Kagan now.. Dangling her pearls and winking at Kennedy.”
Ugh! That does it....I’ll have nightmares for weeks now...
Could be 6-3 or 5-4 for Mandate/Obamacare or could be 5-4 against depending on Kennedy and Roberts.
The four socialist justices need ONLY ONE OF THEM to win either or both. We need BOTH OF THEM.
The Knox case was the case where the court ruled against the SEIU. Breyer wrote the dissent, not the opinion of the court.
It is obvious there is a solid four for upholding the law.
In my opinion though only Thomas is certain to vote to strike down the law. This mean the liberals only need to pick off one of Alito,Scalia,Roberts,or Kennedy to approve the law. Kennedy is always a swing vote, and the remainder have not always been in lock step with conservative principles. My gut says Kennedy and Roberts join the lib 4 to support the law 6-3. I pray that I am wrong.
I know by "law" you mean Obamacare, but I had to do a double-take to get that. More on that below.
Unfortunately, as you point out, the four bad guys only need one of the remaining five to get their way. My take, as yours: most likely Kennedy - game, set, and match (but the tourney isn't over at that point - if SCOTUS blows it, the states must do as Idaho did: nullify Obamacare and exempt its citizens from its mandates). If for some reason, Kennedy has risen up the right side of the bed the day of the decision, then we still may have a Roberts problem. Like you, I see Roberts, sadly, upholding the bill (at least on the Obamacare decision) because he is apparently loathe to overturn the legislature.
Back to what we call "law." The highest Law of the Land of course is the U.S. Constitution which trumps any other law that violates it. I'm sure you know this, but it's probably worth saying that in this sense, this "solid four" (or "socialist four") is for overturning the Law of the Land in favor of said "laws" like Obamacare that helps create a Socialist state. Because Obamacare is illegal (outside U.S. Constitutional bounds) and unjust (wrongly interfering with individual liberty) it is, therefore, as Augustine and Blackstone say below, NO LAW.
More on this below if interested from the Philosophy of Law:
The strongest form of the Overlap Thesis underlies the classical naturalism of Aquinas and Blackstone. As Blackstone describes the thesis, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original" (1979, p. 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of classical naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law. On this view, to paraphrase Augustine, an unjust law is no law at all. http://www.threes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1409:philosophy-of-law&catid=75:philosophy&Itemid=60
I seriously doubt Roberts would vote to uphold the law. That will not happen.
Still leaves Kennedy - he's the game-breaker as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.