Posted on 10/15/2016 5:43:35 PM PDT by MNDude
"it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off"
(Excerpt) Read more at 912communique.com ...
Or not.
Unless you and I and everyone else have different grasp of what "politicize" means.
The old "depends of what the definition of"is" is...
Which I reject.
How can it mean anything other than the Constitutional assumption, at the time it was written, that it would function immune from political pressure or threats of any nature.
If not, then the States bought a pig in a poke.
Not damned likely!
That baby was the result of 16 years of labor!
All the state debates, 85 separate discussions/analyses/arguments via the Federalist Papers? And it's still not clear?
The Republican leadership in both houses aided the passage of the ACA, and they aided it in very big ways. So both parties are guilty of this POC
The Republican leadership in both houses aided the passage of the ACA, and they aided it in very big ways. So both parties are guilty of this POC
It’s a branch of government. It deals with public policy. It is political.
How about UPS or Fedex?
If so, the current ruling is null and void. A president Trump would then, in this case be justified in suspending Obamacare by EO until a new decision could be rendered with new justices.
An investigation into charges of coercion could lead to a nullification of the decision and prosecution of Obama.
I’ve been saying this for years. no one would notice. ss checks would process. etc.
Bookmark
Almost everyone is open to blackmail. All you have to do is have people you love, especially children.
"Re: King v Burwell From:ntanden@gmail.com To: jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com Date: 2015-06-02 22:36 Subject: Re: King v Burwelloops! I mentioned this to John some time back, but think it's a bit more current now. It is most likely that this decision has already been made by the Court, but on the off chance that history is repeating itself, then it's possible they are still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts went from striking the mandate to supporting it in the weeks before). As Jennifer will remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off. In this case, I'm not arguing that Hillary spend a lot of time attacking the Court. I do think it would be very helpful to all of our interest in a decision affirming the law, for Roberts and perhaps Kennedy to see negative political consequences to ruling against the government. Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressives and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would be a ready argument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government. It's not that you wish that happens. But that would be the necessary consequence of a negative decision...the Court itself would become a hugely important political issue."
How old must Robert’s adopted children be by now? They must be a whole chunk older, and probably be U.S. citizens by now. Don’t know how they could be taken from him.
Bttt
I do not see coercion, but veiled insinuation?
Why would national Review care?
ANYONE not supporting Trump I’d for Hillary and everything she is. She’s not going to repent and stop screwing the United States. She will amp it up
These guys at NR collude
Obviously, I don’t know what happened, but it was something DIRTY. Roberts was “ridin dirty”.
They had/have something BIG on Roberts. Not the adoption. Think SEX. It’s ALWAYS SEX.
hillery is going to name bama to court and will move roberts over and he will be chief for life before the executive to ban ammo and guns
No it does not, or rather that is not the intent as defined in the Constitution.
If it deals with "Public Policy" it was a later invention. When did that happen?
Its role is resolving disagreements about the application of any legally Constitutional law adopted by the Legislature.
Or the reverse, refusing to enforce a legally Constitutional Law adopted by The Legislature.
I looked it up. Both of Justice Robert’s adopted children, a girl and a boy, who are not biological siblings, and are less than a year apart, were adopted in 2000. So the youngest they can possibly be is 16 (maybe close to 17 since we are into October), but if they were toddlers could be over 18, and considered adults. I doubt the Roberts could lose the children at this age, but Justice Roberts could face charges for illegal adoption unless the statute has run???
They were 4 or 5 when he was nominated so they are teenagers. As for how they could be taken you are forgetting how vicious this regime is. They can use the law if required, but the law really means nothing to them.
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.