Roberts cast the deciding vote.

[jerryskids 5,207]

There's a lot that goes into the severability analysis. Whether Congress expressed a belief on severability is relevant but not wholly determinative. The Medicaid part was not a vital piece of the legislation (whereas the individual mandate was), therefore you could sever that part without completely undoing thr people's will.

I'll defer to you as a lawyer on the bolded part. But since we were discussing the will of the duly elected representatives, I'm pretty comfortable with my position.

For the record, I think they got the Medicaid part wrong. The federal government has always been allowed to attach conditions to money they give to the states. And why shouldn't they? If the states don't want to follow the policy, then they are free to pass up the funding.

 

Hell, the only reason we have national speed limits and uniform DUI laws is that the federal government made accepting highway funds conditional on those measures. Are we gonna undo that now?

I never personally agreed with the national speed limits, but couldn't overly argue against them on interstates which are federally funded. On roads which aren't, they can eat a bag of d1cks.

 

Even so, there is a difference between imposing a speed limit, and imposing a huge financial outlay for Medicaid. Because an important component of the bullshiot of making the financial numbers "work" was pawning off an increased poverty threshold on the states.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

Why no link?

 

It's always funny when YOU ask for a link, specially when responding to claims you made...where you haven't provided a link...

 

 

 

But here you go. . "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid," Justice Holmes wrote, "our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act."

[IGotWorms 3,317]

It's always funny when YOU ask for a link, specially when responding to claims you made...where you haven't provided a link...

 

 

 

But here you go. . "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid," Justice Holmes wrote, "our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act."

 

RP just got d!ckslapped...again.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

RP just got d!ckslapped...again.

Why?

 

Cuz I asked him why he didn't include a link in his original post?

 

What a tard you are.

[Casual Observer 597]

I'm not surprised you have no idea how statutory construction works.

 

The policy is that the judicial branch should not strike down a duly enacted lae if it can avoid doing so. That's because laws are passed through the people's elected representatives. If the courts struck down laws whenever they felt like it, that would be ruling by judicial fiat.

 

The rule stemming from that policy is that if a statute is susceptible to differing interpretations, and one of those interpretations would be constitutionally permissible while others would not, then the court must accept the interpretation that would allow the law to stand.

 

So no, Roberts did not rewrite the law. He selected the interpretation that would allow him to honor the will of the peoples' elected representatives.

 

As a supposed conservative, I really don't see how you could have a problem with that.

 

Don't forget a discussion of another Canon of statutory contruction: the Court is supposed to construe the law as written.

[MDC 5,895]

If you're a conservitard, "strict constructionalist" just means "ruling that I agree with." And a justice who votes in a way you don't like is unqualified and/or a liberal, even if your own party's president nominated him. Also, warrentlees wiretapping and extraordinary rendition are justified, but the healthcare mandate is an attack on everything America stands for.

 

It all makes sense ... if you're a focking retard.

[Casual Observer 597]

"Strict constructionalist" is a phrase used to describe the views of a Judge in terms of interpreting the Constitution. The rules for analyzing the content of a statute are set out in a legion of prior cases. As for the latter, it has long been the rule that the Court analyzes the statute as written. There are even more rules on top of that (is the statute clear and unambiguous, etc.). The judicial approaches to analyzing the Constitution and analyzing a statute are not identical, nor are they necessarily done at the same time. For example, a Court may find that a statute is so ambiguous as not to be enforceable, before even reaching a Constitutional analysis of it.

 

Other than ad hominems and silly liberal rhetoric, did you have anything of value to add?

[Chronic Husker 85]

"Strict constructionalist" is a phrase used to describe the views of a Judge in terms of interpreting the Constitution. The rules for analyzing the content of a statute are set out in a legion of prior cases. As for the latter, it has long been the rule that the Court analyzes the statute as written. There are even more rules on top of that (is the statute clear and unambiguous, etc.). The judicial approaches to analyzing the Constitution and analyzing a statute are not identical, nor are they necessarily done at the same time. For example, a Court may find that a statute is so ambiguous as not to be enforceable, before even reaching a Constitutional analysis of it.

 

Other than ad hominems and silly liberal rhetoric, did you have anything of value to add?

 

In the fftoday kangaroo court, I hereby convict you of being a dbag alias.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Anyone else notice it's only the libturds who alias?

 

Usually right after finding out they have nothing to offer of substance.

[Chronic Husker 85]

Anyone else notice it's only the libturds who alias?

 

Usually right after finding out they have nothing to offer of substance.

He's too well written and eloquent to be an RP alias.

 

Just shut your mouth, jump on his jock, and let him do the talking.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

He's too well written and eloquent to be an RP alias.

 

Just shut your mouth, jump on his jock, and let him do the talking.

 

Still going with the "alias" angle cuz you can't argue the facts, I see.

 

Good for you.

[Chronic Husker 85]

Still going with the "alias" angle cuz you can't argue the facts, I see.

 

Good for you.

What am I arguing, exactly? Have I made a contention outside of convicting lawyerboy in fftoday kangaroo court? I guess I thanked Bush in the original post...

 

 

This is why you're on ignore with the other trolls.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What am I arguing, exactly?

 

 

Nothing.....absolutely nothing, Rube.

 

You have no argument, which is why you resort to the bored lefty playbook of whining "ALIAS".

 

I thought I made that clear in my other post.

[Chronic Husker 85]

RP just got d!ckslapped...again.

It's like one of those gangbang videos where the girl keeps getting smacked in the face by dongs but keeps her mouth open, waiting for more demoralization...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It's like one of those gangbang videos where the girl keeps getting smacked in the face by dongs but keeps her mouth open, waiting for more demoralization...

LMFAO

 

I've been handing you your ass for the last several posts in this thread, and you panic and bump a 9 hour old post to try to save face.

 

Good job arguing the facts, Rube.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

This is why you're on ignore with the other trolls.

 

 

 

Someone should notify Mike his ignore feature is defective.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

It's like one of those gangbang videos where the girl keeps getting smacked in the face by dongs but keeps her mouth open, waiting for more demoralization...

 

I didn't appreciate the mental picture of RP's face covered in jizz

[Chronic Husker 85]

LMFAO

 

I've been handing you your ass for the last several posts in this thread, and you panic and bump a 9 hour old post to try to save face.

 

Good job arguing the facts, Rube.

 

Why do I have to argue anything? If so, what am I arguing? I started this thread. Not necessarily to argue anything. Your point is that you've been handing me my ass about not arguing on the internets?

 

Ok.

 

Now go open your mouth for a few more dongs to your skull and then re-evaluate your life in the morning. First thing you wanna ask yourself, is why you waste every Friday and Saturday night taking dong slaps to the head when you only wake up covered in come and filth to face your family in the morning.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Why do I have to argue anything?

You don't.

 

It's fun to watch you fall back on the lefty alias busting you rubes do when you have nothing to argue. Man, I've explained this to you several times, yet you can't comprehend it.

[naomi 343]

It's like one of those gangbang videos where the girl keeps getting smacked in the face by dongs but keeps her mouth open, waiting for more demoralization...

 

Oy vey. You need to watch more Charlie Rose and The History Channel.

[gocolts 300]

It's like one of those gangbang videos where the girl keeps getting smacked in the face by dongs but keeps her mouth open, waiting for more demoralization...

Sh1t, you just described Obama supporters perfectly.

[drobeski 3,061]

Rp has the cack loving libtards on full tilt.

[Voltaire 4,564]

It's OK to insult other posters but it's best to use hilarity and we especially could do without the graphic homersexual imagery.

[DankNuggs 305]

Medicaid was struck down in some weird cruel and unusual. Had the Feds only withheld 5-10% instead of 20% it prob would have been fine.

 

Court bitched out to save face because it was scared of Obama the tyranical partisan of attacking the court and forcing the court to stand up for what's right.

 

I did like Roberts opinion. But the whole thing is soap opera and doesn't seem right.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

I did like Roberts opinion. But the whole thing is soap opera and doesn't seem right.

 

I agree on the last sentence. Personally I think the Court should've declined to rule on it until after the election. I know that a lot of the law would've already gone into effect at that point but it would've really cut down on the circus atmosphere.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I agree on the last sentence. Personally I think the Court should've declined to rule on it until after the election. I know that a lot of the law would've already gone into effect at that point but it would've really cut down on the circus atmosphere.

 

So you think the Supreme Court needs to take politics into consideration, instead of just interpreting the Constitutionality of an issue.

 

And you want us to believe you are an attorney.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

So you think the Supreme Court needs to take politics into consideration, instead of just interpreting the Constitutionality of an issue.

 

And you want us to believe you are an attorney.

 

I don't give a fock what you believe about my occupation. In fact I wish you would forget what it is since you (and Strike) seem to be obsessed with the notion.

[Casual Observer 597]

In the fftoday kangaroo court, I hereby convict you of being a dbag alias.

 

 

Oh no. Well, my comment wasn't directed at you, but it's funny that you're mad about it. However, since you've wrongly condemned me as a dbag alias, I must put you in the retard column. There you are in esteemed company with folks such as Nikki and Worms.

[Casual Observer 597]

So you think the Supreme Court needs to take politics into consideration, instead of just interpreting the Constitutionality of an issue.

 

And you want us to believe you are an attorney.

 

At first it was all in good fun to make fun of Worms and act as though the lawyer bit was a lie. However, over time, I've come around to your view. What clinches it for me is the she didn't even try to comment on my posts regarding statutory construction, etc., one way or the other.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I don't give a fock what you believe about my occupation. In fact I wish you would forget what it is since you (and Strike) seem to be obsessed with the notion.

Not obsessed. I just get a chuckle any time you try to chime in on anything related to the law.

 

You shoulda been an Architect, like George Costanza, cuz there aren't too many architect threads here to expose the lie.

 

Better luck next time.

[Greedo 13]

John Bader Roberts re-wrote the law. He based his vote on something not found anywhere in the law, and something the Obama crew argued was not in the law.

 

If that isn't legislating from the bench, what is?

 

Did you listen to the oral arguments, where the "Obama crew" you reference noted it can be interpreted as a tax?

 

It's really amazing to me that otherwise intelligent people are falling for Mittens' load of sh!t.

 

Go back and listen to all the audio and watch all the video of Romney outright PRAISING the individual mandate (without a SINGLE caveat ANYWHERE about it "only being good for the states"). I know you guys really want to believe in this joke of a candidate because you're stuck with him and, hey, I can sympathize as a John Kerry 04 voter, but come the fock on dude.

 

Mittens calls the individual mandate "ultimate conservatism":

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/romney-in-2007-the-indvididual-mandate-is-ultima

 

And this isn't ancient history, either. This was in 2007.

 

Romney

 

BHO will bang him over the head with this all through the fall, just watch. Romney is crazy for trying to use this as an issue, when his creation is the model used for the ACA.

 

Should be interesting to see. Romney was definitely given some ammo. I read a good article that Pointed out how Romney should stress to the American people that while America was in an economic crisis, Obama's priority was passing a giant tax increase on the middle class.

 

Is the middle class intending not to obtain health care?

 

I actually think the Mittster should talk about healthcare as little as possible, because it is a loser for him. And the Marco Rubio's of the world should STFU up about it as well. He made an ass of himself on CNN yesterday.

 

First of all, the individual mandate was a Republican idea, and the GOP supported it for many years.

 

Romney loved the individual mandate until the teabag party wingnuts made him stop. He implemented it in MA, and his plan is the model for the Affordable Care Act. Obummer will eat his lunch over this in debates. It's the central pillar in the Romney-as flip flopping phony argument.

 

Arguing that the individual mandate is ok at the state level, but not federally is not coherent and won't work in debates or with voters.

 

Suddenly calling it a tax, and claiming that Obama has created a tax increase is absurd. It was the Supreme Court which labeled it a tax. Regardless, whether it's a "penalty" or a "tax" is semantics and most people realize this. Furthermore, the Act was passed by Congress, so if anyone created anything, they did.

 

 

I'll put the expertise of Scalia above that of a pretend lawyer from Alaska anyday, and 10 times on Thursday.

 

This the same Scalia that can't properly analyze exceptions to the 1st amendment?

[Chronic Husker 85]

Oh no. Well, my comment wasn't directed at you, but it's funny that you're mad about it. However, since you've wrongly condemned me as a dbag alias, I must put you in the retard column. There you are in esteemed company with folks such as Nikki and Worms.

 

I'm not mad about it at at all.

 

Though, I'm pretty sure we've never had a casual observer that decided he'd just start deconstructing supreme court cases and labeling people retards.

 

 

Also, every lawyerboy that has ever posted here has been a royal dbag. No offense.

[Casual Observer 597]

I'm not mad about it at at all.

 

Though, I'm pretty sure we've never had a casual observer that decided he'd just start deconstructing supreme court cases and labeling people retards.

 

 

Also, every lawyerboy that has ever posted here has been a royal dbag. No offense.

 

That's not true. Jackaroot is a nice guy.

[parrot 789]

Wow. You are really dumb.

 

The law was WRITTEN under the Commerce Clause and said it was not a tax. Obama and his clowns saying it for months is just icing on the cake.

 

The SC is suppose to rule on the law as written, as you just agreed to, and not changed at the whim of one Justice so he can justify his vote.

 

Yeah, I'm dumb because I think the actual text and functioning of the law is what is crucial in determining constituitionality, not the sales job that was offered for it by a bunch of self-serving politicians.

 

Why don't you link me up to where the law was "written under" any clause, or where it's written in the law that the penalty is "not a tax"? It shouldn't be hard to do since it's apparently all written down neat and tidy.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Thought this was interesting, though who knows if it's really accurate:

 

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law

By Jan Crawford

 

(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

 

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

 

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."

 

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

 

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

 

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

 

The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The court's private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members - no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential.

 

But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts' unusual shift has spread widely within the court, and is known among law clerks, chambers' aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.

 

...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[Chronic Husker 85]

That's not true. Jackaroot is a nice guy.

 

You must be his jackass coworker.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yeah, I'm dumb because I think the actual text and functioning of the law is what is crucial in determining constituitionality, not the sales job that was offered for it by a bunch of self-serving politicians.

 

Why don't you link me up to where the law was "written under" any clause, or where it's written in the law that the penalty is "not a tax"? It shouldn't be hard to do since it's apparently all written down neat and tidy.

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

[parrot 789]

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

 

Can't open it. I don't suppose you could quote some relevant excerpts on the points in question.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Can't open it. I don't suppose you could quote some relevant excerpts on the points in question.

Can't open it?

 

Trade in the Commodore 64.

[parrot 789]

Can't open it?

 

Trade in the Commodore 64.

 

So I'll take that as a 'No', I guess. Glad to see you haven't lost that rapier-sharp wit in the meltdown though.