Another interesting take on Roberts' decision. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Another interesting take on Roberts' decision.


CAcop
06-29-2012, 10:46
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/curl-roberts-to-the-rescue-for-romney/

This is a much more simplified version of what Roberts may have been thinking.

He is calling it a tax and saying Congress can do that but they cannot use the Commerce Clause. It may have done more harm than good to liberals trying to use the Commerce Clause for everything.

Obama gets his short term victiory but Republicans can say Obama raised taxes in a recession on people making less than $250K. Then future Congresses may only be able to pass legislation like this if they straight up call it a tax. Can you picture a Democratic Congress making everybody buy solar panels for their house? They would have to admit is a tax from the get go. No more "interstate commerce" silliness.

aircarver
06-29-2012, 10:53
I agree that he delivered a kick in the chops to the leftists that was cloaked so well they never even noticed.

.

JFrame
06-29-2012, 11:01
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/curl-roberts-to-the-rescue-for-romney/

This is a much more simplified version of what Roberts may have been thinking.

...




This ties directly to Point #2 of the other article you linked:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1429787

Of the points noted in that article, I thought this one was the most concrete and least bound by conjecture.


.

beforeobamabans
06-29-2012, 11:08
This is just plain wishful thinking. All Roberts had to do was stick with his usual cadre-they knew they were getting Kennedy--and Obamacare was dead, every last 2700 pages of it. No, living in Washington, the years of ridicule, charges of bias and being publicly berated by the President of the United States got to him. He was thinking about the legacy of the 'Roberts Court' and he decided better to betray his roots than to be painted as an ideologue who managed nothing but 5-4 decisions. This is the same thing that happens to all the politicians, witness Richard Lugar for example.

DOC44
06-29-2012, 11:12
WWRPD

What would Ron Paul Do?

Doc44

CAcop
06-29-2012, 11:16
This is just plain wishful thinking. All Roberts had to do was stick with his usual cadre-they knew they were getting Kennedy--and Obamacare was dead, every last 2700 pages of it. No, living in Washington, the years of ridicule, charges of bias and being publicly berated by the President of the United States got to him. He was thinking about the legacy of the 'Roberts Court' and he decided better to betray his roots than to be painted as an ideologue who managed nothing but 5-4 decisions. This is the same thing that happens to all the politicians, witness Richard Lugar for example.

He got liberal justices to agree with him this was not constitutional as a commerce clause issue.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

BigSteven34
06-29-2012, 11:19
I hope you are right, I really do. Because right now I feel like I just had a knife placed between my shoulder blades.

Jerry
06-29-2012, 11:22
WWRPD

What would Ron Paul Do?

Doc44

He would say its unconstitutional and an infringement on our rights. No, I don't agree with everything Rom Pall wants done but I disagree with just about everything The Obamination has done.

Gundude
06-29-2012, 11:26
My head's reeling from all the spin.

The court could've ruled all that, and struck down the ACA. Made them go back to the drawing board and try to pass it again as a tax.

What gain was there by ostensibly "sneaking" all of this in under the radar of the left?

JFrame
06-29-2012, 11:38
My head's reeling from all the spin.

The court could've ruled all that, and struck down the ACA. Made them go back to the drawing board and try to pass it again as a tax.

What gain was there by ostensibly "sneaking" all of this in under the radar of the left?


The one argument I've heard that sort of made sense to me was that Roberts wanted to buy some political capital for what will presumably be a long tenure as Chief Justice, with what will presumably be many more, and even bigger, conservative battles to come. He threaded a camel through the eye of a needle (to use a phrase by Andrew Napolitano) that gave the left a short-term victory, may have solidified some long-term conservative cover, and again, gives him the apparent sop of having sided with the left for future cases.

I'm not saying that I necessarily buy this justification, but it's one that at least made some sense to me. And if this was, indeed, the case -- it also begs the question as to whether he shouldn't have judged just based on the merits of this single case.

I think a lot of people are starting to come out and perceive gamesmanship in Roberts' decision, because it seemed to make little sense from a judicial standpoint.


.

Gundude
06-29-2012, 11:44
The one argument I've heard that sort of made sense to me was that Roberts wanted to buy some political capital for what will presumably be a long tenure as Chief Justice, with what will presumably be many more, and even bigger, conservative battles to come. He threaded a camel through the eye of a needle (to use a phrase by Andrew Napolitano) that gave the left a short-term victory, may have solidified some long-term conservative cover, and again, gives him the apparent sop of having sided with the left for future cases.

I'm not saying that I necessarily buy this justification, but it's one that at least made some sense to me. And if this was, indeed, the case -- it also begs the question as to whether he shouldn't have judged just based on the merits of this single case.

I think a lot of people are starting to come out and perceive gamesmanship in Roberts' decision, because it seemed to make little sense from a judicial standpoint.


.It's plausible I guess. It sadly solidifies the role of the SC justices as politicians instead of judges, but maybe it was time to end that fantasy anyways.

CAcop
06-29-2012, 12:05
It's plausible I guess. It sadly solidifies the role of the SC justices as politicians instead of judges, but maybe it was time to end that fantasy anyways.

The Supremes are political because we the people put all kinds of pressure on politicians to appoint or prevent the president from appointing judges we the people disagree with politically.

beforeobamabans
06-29-2012, 12:09
What we need is a constitutional amendment making SCOTUS an elected position. Give it a six year term with three up for election every two years. If for no other reason than to give PI something to wrangle over.

JFrame
06-29-2012, 12:18
What we need is a constitutional amendment making SCOTUS an elected position. Give it a six year term with three up for election every two years. If for no other reason than to give PI something to wrangle over.


I guess the whole idea behind giving SCOTUS judges (and all federal judges) lifetime appointments was to inoculate them from public and/or political pressure, so they could preside with utmost impartiality and with no other guide other than devotion to the rule of law.

Considering some of the decisions we've seen handed down -- from California especially -- we see how that idealistic concept works in practice.


.

ModGlock17
06-29-2012, 12:26
I've always believe that Obama has a better chance of winning the election in Nov. if Obamacare got striken by SCOTUS. That's when people feel that their fear is gone, so whoever elected would not be as important.

On the other hand, if Obamacare is upheld, people would feel they have to go the other route, as in repeal, to take down the law. This means they had to vote for ones who would repeal it. Ones mean both POTUS and Congressional people.

From Roberts' stand point, he knew if he upholds Obamacare, it would be repealed anyway in a year or two... making it a moot point. This vote should be used for a higher "play".

But there's another possibility, something that bothers me: was BLACK MAIL done on the Chief ????

BuckeyePPC
06-29-2012, 13:53
This is a much more simplified version of what Roberts may have been thinking.

He is calling it a tax and saying Congress can do that but they cannot use the Commerce Clause. It may have done more harm than good to liberals trying to use the Commerce Clause for everything.



If Obamacare can only work if it is a tax and the Admin is saying it's not a tax but a penalty, then what ? Can the SC strike it down if it's not a tax ?

Ruble Noon
06-29-2012, 14:09
I agree that he delivered a kick in the chops to the leftists that was cloaked so well they never even noticed.

.

No he did not. His ruling on the commerce clause was for this bill only. There was no precedent set. The Bush appointed Roberts sealed the deal. We are now a banana republic.

cowboywannabe
06-29-2012, 14:18
its simple you either like obamab care tax or you dont. november will give you the choice again.

CAcop
06-29-2012, 15:27
If Obamacare can only work if it is a tax and the Admin is saying it's not a tax but a penalty, then what ? Can the SC strike it down if it's not a tax ?

Essentially Obama said it wasn't a tax to get it passed. Then to get it past the Supreme court he had to call it a tax. Now that the Supreme court has said it is consitutional because it is a tax it will forever be known as a tax.

If I were running the GOP now I would be running ads that point out Obama raised taxes on people under $250K despite what he promised. That was what pissed off all those people at those town halls. Get them riled up again.

CAcop
06-29-2012, 15:29
its simple you either like obamab care tax or you dont. november will give you the choice again.

Pretty much. I do not like this "we will tax you unless you buy a product mess" but if it helps prevent liberals from abusing the commerce clause and gets Obama thrown out I am okay with it. If the GOP steps up to the plate and wins all of Congress and the Presidency they can repeal it if they really mean it.

Sam Spade
06-29-2012, 17:41
"Hey, Mittens....how'd you like to preside over the largest tax cut in American history?"


Yeah, I could see where that might have some first-term attractiveness.