Posted on 03/05/2015 11:20:38 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
In yesterday's arguments about ObamaCare before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts surprised observers by saying almost nothing. But the single question he did ask might well have tipped his hand, writes Jeffrey Toobin at the New Yorker. If Toobin is right, it's a mixture of good and bad news for the White House: Roberts would vote to keep the law in place—but leave the door open for a future president to gut it. Roberts' question came after Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that under precedent set in a Chevron case, the Obama administration has the flexibility to interpret the health law broadly enough to get around troublesome wording about subsidies at the heart of the case.
“If you’re right about Chevron, that would indicate that a subsequent administration could change that interpretation?” Roberts asked. Verrilli acknowledged it could. This "suggests a route out of the case for Roberts," who is generally opposed to the idea of limiting the power of presidents, writes Toobin. He could provide the swing vote to uphold the law, "with a reminder that a new election is fast approaching"—and a reminder that a new president could re-interpret the law immediately. "In other words, the future of ObamaCare should be up to the voters, not the justices." Click to read the full post.
The fix has been in. They aren’t going to rule against bambi.
That is NOT a mixture of good and bad, just bad!
Not so. In fact, I bet the Administration wants SCOTUS to strike against the law.
Wonderful, so we have no law, simply what the next king thinks the law should be.
I need a breath mint from the bile that just rised in my gullet. What a frickin coward. And by the way the voters never had a say in Obamacare. It had been sitting in a desk since the 40s and just waiting for the right group of marxist progressives to ram it through.
Toobin is an idiot, and people read questions from the bench too directly. A question is not an argument. A judge can even ask a question to prompt the counter-argument he wants to hear.
All branches of our government are devoted to inflicting the maximum harm upon the American people. “In declining states the leadership intuitively inflicts the maximum harm.”
Yeah, sure, a Republican president is going to be the sole bad guy by taking away “healthcare” from “women and minorities.” Like that’s going to happen.
I think everyone misses the point here. The full effects of Obamacare have not been felt by Americans. I say let the full force come down on all of us...then we’ll vote to make changes, and throw the bums out.
How so? Would he then going to go on National Television and ask, "Who do you want writing the laws Congress won't write, unelected Justices or your elected President?
I would give a left nut to know what they have on Roberts. His previous opinion would embarrass Joe Biden.
This is gobbledegook.
"Let John Jay and Brandeis be damned.
These Laws, fines and taxes are for all others
.... but not us.
And not our staff, or our families.
and of course not for Moslems who began this country."
"At the foundation of our civil liberties lies
the principle that denies to government officials
an exceptional position before the law and which
subjects them to the same rules of conduct
that are commands to the citizen."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Same cowardice trait as Boehner; always looking to abet Obama while searching for an alibi.
The one-balled wonder Robert will again try to split the baby in half.
*if* he uses that logic that would be completely asinine. Bascially he’d be saying the President is a king and can do what they want regardless of what laws say because the President can just interpret them however he sees fit.
Want higher taxes...I read that 30% as 60%. Want to cut taxes...I read that only the income made that isn’t taxed by the local state gov’t as being available to be taxed by the feds.
We are truly a banana republic when this type of logic can pass as acceptable.
Been waiting since the 30s during FDR’s reign. It was shelved as it was deemed ‘too much too soon’.
I think all he is doing is asking a question and wanting a response. The problem, I think deals with the meaning of the words “established by the state”. It can’t mean one thing in one part of the statute and something different in another part of the statute. As long as that holds true, then the supremes should rule in favour of the individuals from Virgina who were harmed by this section in the law.
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.