Posted on 06/28/2012 2:37:54 PM PDT by Hojczyk
But I think if you scratch the surface here, Roberts embarked upon a gambit much like Marshall did 200 years ago. For the results-oriented -- which is to say, most observers on both sides who have been ranting about the Constitution for the past few months -- this is a clear win for the Obama administration, at least in the short term. By removing most legal impediments to the implementation of the law, the odds that the president’s signature legislation will eventually be implemented have risen.
1. The law still has a good chance of not being implemented.
2. Doctrinally, The Federalist Society got everything it wanted.
But judicial conservatives who are not just concerned about the outcome got more than they could have reasonably hoped for. Doctrinally speaking, this case will likely be remembered as a watershed decision for conservatives.
Five justices just signaled to lower courts that, but for the unique taxation power argument, they were prepared to rule that a major act of Congress that plainly touched upon economic activity exceeded Congress’ commerce powers. Right now, liberals are seemingly too busy celebrating their win, and conservatives bemoaning their loss, to realize the significance of this.
3. The chief justice has built up some political capital.
Roberts has basically done what John Marshall did: Insulate the court from criticism of bald partisan bias and infidelity to, as he once put it, calling balls and strikes. He’s earning plaudits from the left. Though the right is grumbling, I suspect they won’t be doing so for long
4. This matters in the long run -- a lot.
All told, it is easier for the conservative wing of the court to make some significant rulings in some other policy areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
LLS
IMHO....the Supremes aren’t yet done adjudicating ObamaCare yet.
So it’s a tax. So when does the government actually get access to your bank account directly to collect their tax? That’s gonna be adjudicated yet.
You are in denial. Its ok - we are all in a state of shock today.
Roberts just gave the govt the power to tax inactivity.
Not good.
Exactly. He can make 1,000 good rulings, but this one cements his place in history right along a Obama, W, and the rest of the big govt statists
FUGWB
FUJR
FUBO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7aZEEksK_w&feature=player_embedded
watch and learn. you are dead wrong.
ABO goes without saying, ultimately. (There’s a *lot* that can happen between now & November, but even then, there’s Hillary)
How sad that even a few people would sell their freedom so cheap. (Actually, it’s not cheap. This will cost so many people not only the health care they *could* obtain, but cut hard into every other aspect of their lives as well. There were OFAs who said this outright, in 2009)
Praying for 2010 on steroids...
You're the one that mentioned judges appointed by the Bushes and Reagan and they were appointed by a Bush and Reagan.
If you think Republican President giving us a conservative justice 50% of the time is good enough, you're a fool.
People like YOU are the reason Republicans keep winning elections and the country keeps moving to the left.
Stupid doesn't being to describe that mentality. And, now, you want us to believe the most liberal Republican nominee since Richard Nixon is gong to advance conservatism.
No, this ruling is worse than people believe. It hands unlimited power to the Federal Govenment.
A comment was made in an article that Roberts is playing chess while everyone else is playing poker. This close in to the decision being given I'm beginning to wonder if he's playing 3-D chess even amongst those playing chess.
Time and a better, closer reading of the decision should help everyone form a better conclusion. Initial reactions are usually just that...an initial response and reactionary response.
I pray that I'm right and this turns out to be a good ruling and beneficial to our cherished Republic instead of the millstone that drags it to its eventual, untimely death.
So, how do you plan to preserve your personal liberty?
I don’t believe it will be possible.
Okay then. Well...thanks.
Robert’s is like a James Bond Super-villain. He’s got him dead, but then decides to kill him with a giant laser beam while suspended over a shark tank.
They could have killed it and gotten the very same result. I hope the author is right, but usually this “chess” playing is too smart by half.
Who F’ing cares about the “reputation” of the stupid SC????
Do your jobs justices and UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!
What’s so hard about that?
Dr. Evil: Scott, I want you to meet daddy's nemesis, Austin Powers
Scott Evil: What? Are you feeding him? Why don't you just kill him?
Dr. Evil: I have an even better idea. I'm going to place him in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death.
Dr. Evil: All right guard, begin the unnecessarily slow-moving dipping mechanism.
[guard starts dipping mechanism]
Dr. Evil: Close the tank!
Scott Evil: Wait, aren't you even going to watch them? They could get away!
Dr. Evil: No no no, I'm going to leave them alone and not actually witness them dying, I'm just gonna assume it all went to plan. What?
Scott Evil: I have a gun, in my room, you give me five seconds, I'll get it, I'll come back down here, BOOM, I'll blow their brains out!
Dr. Evil: Scott, you just don't get it, do ya? You don't.
The decision did nothing of the sort. That was Roberts opinion only. Read his majority opinion (reads like a dissent). When mentioning the commerce clause he was only writing for HIMSELF and not the majority.
So? By voting with the libs and only writing HIS opinion, not the majority, on the commerce clause it’s just a side note.
The 5-4 ruling doesn’t stop the misuse of the commerce clause.
Virtually every legal scholar, except that is, for the actual conservatives on the Court who thoroughly destroyed the claim that the mandate was a tax. Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito all held that the mandate was NOT a tax. They cited four precedent cases in which the court rejected claims that a penalty could be imposed under the taxation authority of Congress. And they said -- in no uncertain terms: "This Court HAS NEVER BEFORE RULED THAT A PENALTY COULD BE REGARDED AS A TAX."
Now please stop apologizing for the Majority. You're "analysis" is as embarrassing as their opinion.
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.