Skip to comments.
My Prediction on Tomorrow’s Obamacare Ruling
National Review ^
| 06/27/2012
| Ed Whelan
Posted on 06/27/2012 6:41:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 last
To: freekitty
How right you are. Everything depends on this. If Obamacare is upheld, there is no limit to federal authority, none whatsoever.
41
posted on
06/27/2012 9:02:58 PM PDT
by
PUGACHEV
To: SeekAndFind
"... Im not aware of any reliable record of cases in which justices have read their dissents from the bench..." Justice Souter read his dissent from the bench in DC vs. Heller back in 2008.
42
posted on
06/27/2012 9:06:17 PM PDT
by
The KG9 Kid
(Semper Fi)
To: Revolting cat!
I perdict the Supremes are gonna take a mulligan.
Smartest thing said by anyone. I predict they have been” talked” to. Probably Kennedy the most.
43
posted on
06/27/2012 9:08:14 PM PDT
by
lookout88
(.combat officer's dad)
To: SeekAndFind
Imagine the whole healthcare travesty only works if we ignore the Constitution.
44
posted on
06/27/2012 10:12:30 PM PDT
by
Mike Darancette
(Ineptocracy; the Obama way.)
To: muawiyah
The problem in Kelo was CONNECTICUT. The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment applies to the Federal Government. Most of the states have a comparable clause in their own constitutions. Connecticut does not. I disagree; the problem with Kelo was allowing imagination* of greater tax-revenue to be valid as the justification-of eminent domain and as qualifying for the "public use" portion of the 5th Amendment.
* Really "projection" but it must be emphasized that the numbers have no basis in reality as the land seized was never developed and therefore never generated any increased tax-revenue.
45
posted on
06/27/2012 10:20:01 PM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: muawiyah
Oh, almost forgot, no matter what the decision Romney is not going to say anything at this time. I can't imagine what he could say that could change the court decision before or after the fact. Let Obama simmer in his own juice.
46
posted on
06/27/2012 10:22:28 PM PDT
by
Mike Darancette
(Ineptocracy; the Obama way.)
To: muawiyah
The takings clause applies to the states, too, since 1897.
47
posted on
06/28/2012 12:48:50 AM PDT
by
Defiant
(If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
To: SeekAndFind; sickoflibs; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; ...
48
posted on
06/28/2012 1:48:19 AM PDT
by
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
(Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
To: PUGACHEV
49
posted on
06/28/2012 2:08:46 AM PDT
by
freekitty
(Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
To: The KG9 Kid
You misunderstand the author. He was stating that he is not aware of stats on how many dissents are read each term by each justice. ;^)
50
posted on
06/28/2012 3:58:01 AM PDT
by
Notwithstanding
(Christ Jesus Victor, Ruler, Lord and Redeemer!)
To: SeekAndFind
Here is my prediction:
At exactly 10:00 AM, just as the country awaits the announcement of the Supreme Court ObamaCare decision, the Cable Guy falls into the middle of the vital satellite dish carrying tv, radio, and internet communications knocking them all out and leaving everybody in the dark as to the decision.
51
posted on
06/28/2012 4:06:36 AM PDT
by
PJ-Comix
(You're screwy! You're spaced! You lost the recall race!)
To: Defiant
Two parts to 'takings" ~ (1) just compensation, and as you've noted that's been around for a good while, and (2) public purpose ~ and when kelo v. was announced by the Court only a handful of states hedged in what that meant, but a short time after kelo v. 42 states had hedged it in.
Still the same 'clause' ~ but now statutorily better defined.
The USSC didn't go any further than most states did at the time ~ and earlier urban renewal cases were certainly murky.
Like to note that when USPS or DOD decide they need land for buildings people fall over themselves trying to sell them all sorts of land. Rarely does either agency ever need to resort to eminent domain. During my many decades at USPS there was only one time it was used and that was due to a landlord who did not provide agreed upon maintenance ~ which is another lesson, namely, if you rent property to the US government they can go after you with eminent domain so make sure you crank your legal defense costs into the up front estimation on the rent!
52
posted on
06/28/2012 4:52:25 AM PDT
by
muawiyah
To: Jake8898
By caving, it would seem that SCOTUS would abdicate ALL judicial review authority forever.
To allow an unconstitutional mandate to stand is to relegate themselves into a rubber-stamp bunch of dressed up fools.
53
posted on
06/28/2012 5:11:42 AM PDT
by
Huebolt
(It's not over until there is not ONE DEMOCRAT HOLDING OFFICE ANYWHERE. Not even a dog catcher!)
To: tsowellfan; All
Tonight Levin said if the mandate is struck down, Obama will resort to executive orders to reconstitute what was struck down
Obama will by-pass whatever ruling they make that he does not agree with. I agree with what Mark Levin said.
correct...i concur with that assessment; it's also a way president O'Bozo & Co. shall
show their utter contempt for the "rule of law" & the US Constitution/the Bill of Rights.
the Dictatorship of the Commutards; shall continue quietly, then openly (noisy) when
the Constitutionalists can't intervene.
54
posted on
06/28/2012 6:05:11 AM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(WA DC E$tabli$hment; DNC/RNC/Unionists...Brazilian saying: "$@me Old $hit; different flie$". :^)
To: SeekAndFind
The US Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012 70.0% CHANCE
Last prediction was: $7.00 / share
Todays Change: -$0.50 (-6.7%)
55
posted on
06/28/2012 9:44:49 AM PDT
by
cynwoody
To: mcshot
"My thought it was to switch from the Bible to the Koran for the full oath. That way he can lie with immunity from his true faith."Hmmm .. interesting.
Maybe flubbing it twice was God's staying hand on the serpent's tongue ?
56
posted on
06/29/2012 2:22:16 AM PDT
by
knarf
(I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson