I have to repeat what I wrote on another thread:
Justice is supposed to be blind.
Determining the outcome of any case based on what its results will be is......actually.......ILLEGAL!
Yet, that’s what SCOTUS wants to do here.....as Kennedy asked what the results would be of a ruling for the plaintiff’s......he’s blatantly wrong to even ask the question or consider it as a factor!
The ruling is simply supposed to determine WHAT THE LAW SAYS - no more, no less!
That these considerations are even being discussed clearly says we are no longer a nation of laws........but it’s really been that way a long time.......how about Roe v. Wade?????????
The point isn’t that the Congress in inept,the point is that it’s Congress’s responsibility to deal with it.
The bill is written in English. That is what has them confused.
The Taxpayers that are appalled at this action File Suit and the SCOTUS agrees to hear their case. One Justice, a former ACLU Lawyer says the Taxpayers who Filed Suit have no standing.
The Solicitor Generals argument to the Court is if they Rule Against the Government, all those Instant Millionaires will be harmed since they won't get to keep the Money.
Yep, got it....
“”This is not the most elegantly drafted statute,” he said. “It was pushed through on expedited procedures and didn’t have the kind of consideration by a conference committee, for example, that statutes usually do. What would be so surprising if, among its other imperfections, there is the imperfection that what the states have to do is not obvious enough? It doesn’t strike me as inconceivable.”
A slap to how quickly this thing was pushed through. Pelosi and Reed and Obama should be embarrassed.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
I hope that Justice Scalia didn’t pay for his Harvard Law School indoctrination out of his own pocket.
As noted in related threads, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.
NPR: A Ruling Against Obamacare Would Have Broad Implications http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3264252/posts?page=34#34
If misguided Justice Scalia really wants Congress to have the constitutional authority that it needs to tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes then he must do the following.
Scalia must encourage Congress to propose a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states for ratification. And if the states choose to ratify Scalia’s amendment then Congress will have the constitutional authority that it needs to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes and Scalia will be a hero.
A pretty succinct description of the Obamacare rollout.
If a Judge follows the law he cannot even consider the other consequences of his decision. His only interest is supposed to be in upholding the law. Any judge who does not follow the law is a lawless political Hack at the very least. And in the case of Roberts- An outright traitor.
Those same folks were getting free heae before they signed up. We do not leave people dying in the streets and every emergency room has the same sign....No one turned away!!