Comments on: #rsrh The Health Tax, Reconciliation, and the Nightmare Scenario.

By: Liber Ex Machina

Liber Ex Machina — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:42:39 +0000

@Darin- Oh, that’s right. Now that the rage has receded to the normal mild depression, I can think a little straighter.

I still maintain that at least one of the justices only law experience has been to read the Constitution. That keeps justices from getting too smart for their own good…

By: DaveP.

DaveP. — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:17:46 +0000

I wonder if Roberts realizes that he just worked hismelf out of a job? If the only purpose of the Supremes is to rubberstamp any asinine expansion of power the Administration wants, why does the Administration need a Supreme Court…?
Followon: Now that he has rewarded President Obama’s pressure and intimidation of the Court, does Roberts think he’s going to get less of it in the future? Does he think that, now it’s been shown to work, the intimidation and villification is going to stop even if Obama leaves office?

By: Darin H

Darin H — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:00:35 +0000

Liber – Alito was the replacement for the failed Miers nomination.

By: RND(8348394)

RND(8348394) — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:20:26 +0000

Hmm,

My gut feeling is that there is some subtlety to this opinion. When was the last time that the scope of the commerce clause been checked by the court? In my mind it’s like a three way chess game and instead of bringing out the queen, Roberts moved a knight and reshaped the board by denying some territory rather then by outright occupying it.

Another analogy would be that Roberts needed to be careful with the large political charge around the ACA (what the founders would have termed passions). Could he have chosen to redirect that energy back into the traditional channels as laid by the constitution (Congress, specifically the House?) instead of grounding it in the supreme court?

Then again I could be getting way to meta about this and it would only make sense if Roberts was acting like a statesman for the supreme court.

By: Liber Ex Machina

Liber Ex Machina — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:14:54 +0000

I am so filled with rage right now about this that I can’t even see straight. My current employer already gives me the one-two punch of no benefits, a terrible wage (made around 15K last year), and no real chance at promotion. Now [expletive] John Roberts says I have to choose between giving somewhere between 50-75% of my yearly salary (before I try to pay rent) to buy a [expletive] ridiculously overstuffed insurance policy or go to jail for tax fraud/evasion. All because he apparently could not see the downside of forcing that Osborn-esque decision. The forces of tyranny won today; and we have too many people in office/running for President “on our side” that are ultimately okay with that. I still have not heard Romney say his version of “I deserve to go to jail for the heinous crime of not being able to afford health insurance” was a despicable thing that should also be overturned.
Any of ya’ll that threw a fit over Harriet Miers having the buyer’s remorse right now? I thought having a nice, mildly dimwitted barely-a-lawyer lady would be an improvement over another Ivy League elitist. Who knew fighting against that would be our country’s ultimate ruin.
Rant over; sorry for the length…

By: Spegen

Spegen — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:15:33 +0000

Words fail me, more Bush big-government from Roberts

By: Luke

Luke — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:45:25 +0000

I’m just sick.

There’s a law for that.

By: Rob Crawford

Rob Crawford — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:18:07 +0000

“All SCOTUS did was agree that a FEE (for not having insurance) is a TAX. ”
.
And that there’s no limit to what you can be charged a FEE for doing or not doing. They cannot mandate you eat your broccoli, but they can TAX your non-consumption of it.

By: Jbird

Jbird — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:14:14 +0000

Aruges: wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants. Scalia will be a big loss no matter who picks his replacement, and getting a more consistently conservative judge in Kennedy’s place would be nice. But, replacing Ginsburg with a conservative would be huge. I can see Breyer trying to outlast Romney and holding out for a Democrat president.

By: Aruges

Aruges — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:10:34 +0000

Jbird, she still can.

By: Jbird

Jbird — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:07:43 +0000

acat: I’m actually a little surprised that Ginsburg didn’t retire so that Obama could name her replacement.

By: Brad S

Brad S — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:02:21 +0000

“The Supreme Court declared us all livestock today, and I unless Romney has a lot more fire in his gut than he shows, he’s not the one who will change that.”

This is…nonsense. All SCOTUS did was agree that a FEE (for not having insurance) is a TAX. Grover Norquist would applaud this ruling.