Holy Sh8, it was Roberts!!

[Anonymous]

Yes, 13:17, that would be an interesting story to hear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it, really. It seems like he wanted this and fished around for a reason to uphold it. Or, he really felt the legal argument about taxes held water. In either case, the law has been upheld. How can he make this decision without considering the political and human implications of this?

It comes as a huge surprise to me, yet health care is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Illness strikes indiscriminately, and once you've been struck, you see the value of this program. I'm wondering if Roberts has a personal connection to this, which fueled his decision. Or did he simply buy the argument about Congressional power to impose taxes?

Who knows what's going on in his head, but I think he wrote what he truly believed. There is a defeat here for liberals. He's now provided a holding that limits Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause. While health care moves forward, broad legislative power has been curbed to a certain degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it, really. It seems like he wanted this and fished around for a reason to uphold it. Or, he really felt the legal argument about taxes held water. In either case, the law has been upheld. How can he make this decision without considering the political and human implications of this?

It comes as a huge surprise to me, yet health care is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Illness strikes indiscriminately, and once you've been struck, you see the value of this program. I'm wondering if Roberts has a personal connection to this, which fueled his decision. Or did he simply buy the argument about Congressional power to impose taxes?

Because judges and justices are supposed to rule on the legality of an issue and specifically not supposed to consider the political and/or human implications. While I understand that many justices have let political views sway their opinions over the years, in theory, that is not supposed to happen. I won't say whether he did or did not, but it seems to me that he analyzed the case for the legality of the issues and ruled on that, specifically ignoring the political issues as justices are supposed to do.

[Anonymous]

Roberts is throwing this issue back to the people. It's now up to us (via the legislature). It was unpopular before and now, as a tax hike, it will be even more unpopular. In the end, I believe it will be repealled and Obama will lose because of it.

I wish h

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he should resign, there will be a petition

You can petition your little butt off. THe point of a lifetime appointment is to protect them from hillbillies with pitchforks like yourself.

LOL. Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Roberts is throwing this issue back to the people. It's now up to us (via the legislature). It was unpopular before and now, as a tax hike, it will be even more unpopular. In the end, I believe it will be repealled and Obama will lose because of it.

I wish h

Doubtful. How about all those parents now covering their kids up to age 26 on their own employer? Do you think they want to give that coverage up for their young adult kids? How about the hospitals who just saw their stocks sore on the market because this will help reduce their uncompensated care losses? How about those making up to 400% FPG now being able to access somewhat affordable health care? A family of two making $60,000 or less will now be able to purchase more affordable coverage in a health exchange, regardless of preexisting health conditions. A lot of people are going to benefit. Those most likely to pay the $695 in taxes are young, healthy, single, childless adults. And they tend to be slightly more liberal. So I'm not too worried about any public backlash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: He's now provided a holding that limits Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause. While health care moves forward, broad legislative power has been curbed to a certain degree.

Um. This is not the first decision to take on the expansive interpretation of the commerce clause.

[Anonymous]

The anger is building..... 2008 all over again

[Anonymous]

The chief justice may be remembered for this ruling not because they upheld the consitutionality of ACA but because of a new scope of interpretation on the commerce clause-- with increased limitation of the legislative branch.

Yes, it is a victory for increasing the size of 18% of our american economy and hopefully access to health care increases dramatically as well, but it will be interesting to see how this creates a new precedent in commerce clause interpretation-- maybe it should be called the Robert's Test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: He's now provided a holding that limits Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause. While health care moves forward, broad legislative power has been curbed to a certain degree.

Yeah, but they just opened up a huge hole a few years back with medical marijuana case. I don't think this is a dramatic re-interpretation of ICC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are an idiot. Roberts is a judge, not a politician. This decision is not "liberal" or "conservative," it's "law."

This could be the most naive--borderline idiotic--thing I've ever read on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it, really. It seems like he wanted this and fished around for a reason to uphold it. Or, he really felt the legal argument about taxes held water. In either case, the law has been upheld. How can he make this decision without considering the political and human implications of this?

It comes as a huge surprise to me, yet health care is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Illness strikes indiscriminately, and once you've been struck, you see the value of this program. I'm wondering if Roberts has a personal connection to this, which fueled his decision. Or did he simply buy the argument about Congressional power to impose taxes?

Who knows what's going on in his head, but I think he wrote what he truly believed. There is a defeat here for liberals. He's now provided a holding that limits Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause. While health care moves forward, broad legislative power has been curbed to a certain degree.

More nonsense. The Commerce Clause has always been limited. This is a defeat for liberals in the same way that Brown v Board of Education was a "defeat".

What this case does illustrate is that, when liberals lose, we lose small. When reactionaries (i.e. "American conservatives") lose, they lose big. And for a very long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Roberts is throwing this issue back to the people. It's now up to us (via the legislature). It was unpopular before and now, as a tax hike, it will be even more unpopular. In the end, I believe it will be repealled and Obama will lose because of it.

I wish h

Doubtful. How about all those parents now covering their kids up to age 26 on their own employer? Do you think they want to give that coverage up for their young adult kids? How about the hospitals who just saw their stocks sore on the market because this will help reduce their uncompensated care losses? How about those making up to 400% FPG now being able to access somewhat affordable health care? A family of two making $60,000 or less will now be able to purchase more affordable coverage in a health exchange, regardless of preexisting health conditions. A lot of people are going to benefit. Those most likely to pay the $695 in taxes are young, healthy, single, childless adults. And they tend to be slightly more liberal. So I'm not too worried about any public backlash.

Exactly. If there's a backlash brewing, it's just as likely to come from reasonable, sane Americans against the slavering imbeciles who keep trying to turn the US into a third world kleptocracy.

[Anonymous]

Supposedly he looked miserable (red eyed and sad) when reading the decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:he should resign, there will be a petition

You can petition your little butt off. THe point of a lifetime appointment is to protect them from hillbillies with pitchforks like yourself.

LOL. Exactly.

The Constitution says that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior". Congress can impeach justices and remove them from the court.