Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who saved Obamacare in 2012, stays quiet this time
Yahoo ^ | 3/4 | Lizzy Goodwin

Posted on 03/04/2015 12:37:04 PM PST by TangledUpInBlue

Chief Justice John Roberts, who saved President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul three years ago by unexpectedly joining the liberal wing of the court, stayed largely silent in oral arguments on a new challenge that could deal a mortal blow to the law.

The argument centers on whether four words in the more than 1,000-page act should be interpreted literally, which would render millions of people who live in the dozens of states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges ineligible for federal subsidies to help them purchase insurance.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: justiceroberts; kingvburwell; obamacare; scotusobamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last
I analyze laws for a living. Absent ambiguity, there are very few instances when "legislative intent" is presumed to trump the actual letter of the law.

It's fairly clear in my experience that "state" means State and "Federal" means Federal. I would have a tough time accepting that "state" in this one section of the law, is meant to refer to BOTH states, and the "Nation State" - but in all other areas of the law it refers only to States.

This is going to be interesting to watch.

1 posted on 03/04/2015 12:37:04 PM PST by TangledUpInBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

Roberts is silent because perhaps he has not received his orders yet from his masters. The man is without character.


2 posted on 03/04/2015 12:42:40 PM PST by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

They rewrote the law which is illegal.


3 posted on 03/04/2015 12:43:17 PM PST by Boardwalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

>>Absent ambiguity, there are very few instances when “legislative intent” is presumed to trump the actual letter of the law.<<

IMHO “Texas v. White” still controls.

Feds, get thee behind me.

But Roberts’ tortured analysis was worse than Lucas’ attempt to save his “parsecs=time” screwup.

The fact we are always just one vote away from complete dictatorship should concern every American.

But LIVs don’t understand...


4 posted on 03/04/2015 12:43:42 PM PST by freedumb2003 (islam: The hands of the Chinese, the mouths of the arabs, the minds of the French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Less Than 1K To Go!


Click The Pic To Donate

Please Donate!

5 posted on 03/04/2015 12:44:16 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

I’m pretty sure Roberts was blackmailed, probably because his Irish children were illegally adopted. It’s doubtful that they will fail to blackmail him again.


6 posted on 03/04/2015 12:44:27 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

And tax means .......?


7 posted on 03/04/2015 12:44:29 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Yep


8 posted on 03/04/2015 12:44:43 PM PST by ColdOne (I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Wow one post and conspiracy theorists are here already. No proof but whatever makes you guys feel good.


9 posted on 03/04/2015 12:45:15 PM PST by Blackirish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

The “fix” will be the worst bending of law the USSC has come up with in US history.


10 posted on 03/04/2015 12:46:01 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

Proper legal analysis means nothing to Ginsburg, Kagan & Sotamayer (the two lesbos of the apocalypse) or Breyer.

They only pretend to have any sort of intellectual consistency, and practice outcome-based jurisprudence.


11 posted on 03/04/2015 12:47:48 PM PST by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; MHGinTN

” But Roberts’ tortured analysis was worse than Lucas’ attempt to save his “parsecs=time” screwup.”

Tortured hardly seems mean enough. Biden graduated second from the bottom in law school, and I doubt he would have done as bad. Roberts was a Harvard scholar, and his analysis was the most convoluted, pretzel logic POS I ever read.


12 posted on 03/04/2015 12:49:22 PM PST by stephenjohnbanker (My Batting Average( 1,000) (GOPe is that easy to read))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

” (the two lesbos of the apocalypse “

LOL


13 posted on 03/04/2015 12:50:17 PM PST by stephenjohnbanker (My Batting Average( 1,000) (GOPe is that easy to read))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Somebody give Ginsberg a triple scotch. It might help.


14 posted on 03/04/2015 12:51:00 PM PST by stephenjohnbanker (My Batting Average( 1,000) (GOPe is that easy to read))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue
This is going to be interesting to watch.

Indeed.

15 posted on 03/04/2015 12:51:35 PM PST by logi_cal869 (-cynicus-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

There is no wiggle room on this. However, the court will rule in favor or the government. And why not?


16 posted on 03/04/2015 12:52:21 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue; LucyT; null and void
I analyze laws for a living. Absent ambiguity, there are very few instances when "legislative intent" is presumed to trump the actual letter of the law.

Not only is that a correct rule as a generalization, but the Supreme Court has historically not only refused to rewrite legislation on this basis, the Court has specifically refused to consider legislative intent to interpret legislation.

MORE IMPORTANT! Everyone should write the House and Senate Judiciary committees asking for immediate action on the following issue. If you have a Senator or Member on Judiciary, write them a direct letter. The threat that Justice Roberts is subject to personal pressure merits review and consideration by Congress.

Three years ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cast the tie-breaking vote in a ruling that saved President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform.

As everyone is aware, there is extensive gossip in the political community to the effect that Roberts and his wife have only two children who were adopted.

They were purportedly born in a foreign jurisdiction and there were in place legal constraints that effectively precluded US persons from adopting children born there under the circumstances of the Roberts adoption.

So to avoid those restrictions, the adoption was accomplished through the device of a third country system. Whether or not the third country worked to accomplish an effective adoption or not is not clear from the level of gossip in circulation.

The presumed threat is that the Roberts' could lose their two children several years down the road from the initial adoption events.

The end consequence of this condition, as reported by loose talk and political gossip, is that Roberts' vote on Obamacare was leveraged by the zero in the White House to uphold legislation that everyone knows is unconstitutional on its face.

I do not know what, if any, merit, substance, or facts exist to support the gossip.

I think it is and was the obligation of the Senate Judiciary Committee to know stuff like this. The gossip alone, unrefuted that it is by any authoritative response, affects confidence in our Constitutional process.

What should be done is that House Judiciary should immediately schedule a hearing on the issue and subpoena Justice Roberts to explain the actual facts.

17 posted on 03/04/2015 12:53:37 PM PST by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logi_cal869; TangledUpInBlue

>>This is going to be interesting to watch.

>>>Indeed.<<<

I wish it was as academic as that — America will pay dearly if SCOTUS ignores law and/or again creates new law.


18 posted on 03/04/2015 12:54:46 PM PST by freedumb2003 (islam: The hands of the Chinese, the mouths of the arabs, the minds of the French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

Yes, the `plain meaning’ rule of construction. But that was before Change.

Roberts is probably laying low. The last time he lectured us and said that it wasn’t his job to save us from our political choices.

The only way the Dark Lord’s SCOTUS minions can save this fumble/fall on this grenade for Sauron is by becoming a court of chancery, measuring things with the size of their feet, and this matter is, as you say, a matter of law.

No worry for the Necromancer in the White Hut though, since it isn’t at all clear that we remain a “(We are) a nation of laws.” US v. Nixon, 1974.
All his Majesty has to do is issue a proclamation: “This is what was meant. I have spoke. Let it be writ. Let it be done. Now, let’s golf.”


19 posted on 03/04/2015 12:57:38 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

I don’t buy the
“Roberts is compromised”
scare

Roberts ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012 because
- he wanted restraint on the Commerce clause, and
- he didn’t want to intrude on the separation of powers. Roberts defended his position by stating (in essence) that “elections have consequences”

If you recall, Roberts struck down the Medicaid provisions in Obamacare. This protects the states against Federal funding threats. IOW - there is a conservative basis for all of Roberts 2012 opinions.

The present case is NOT argued on Constitutional grounds. It is being argued that the letter of the law is not being followed.

I strongly believe that Roberts will shoot down the law on the basis that “words have consequences”

= = =

I also feel pretty good about Kennedy’s prospects of killing the law.

He felt the strongest that the individual mandate was unconstitutional in 2012 when he sided with the conservatives. It was Kennedy who lobbied the strongest to get Roberts to side with the conservatives and himself.

Kennedy doesn’t like this law at all.


20 posted on 03/04/2015 12:57:41 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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