Comments on: SCOTUS Pwns Obama with a “Schrodinger’s Cat” Solution

By: Flagstaff

Flagstaff — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 07:16:34 +0000

But it seems the law was already unconstitutional, so how do we write an amendment that will stop a Justice from misinterpreting the Constitution on purpose to reach a predetermined result?

By: Flagstaff

Flagstaff — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 07:09:39 +0000

at least as far as applying it as precedent goes.

After all, Roberts himself is apparently unable to explain it. How could someone else apply it to something else? At least I can hope that. It’s weird enough that maybe it will be sliced and diced later.

By: aesthete

aesthete — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 06:08:19 +0000

“Not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. They wouldn’t even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters. The best way to get a drink out of a Vogon is to stick your finger down his throat, and the best way to irritate him is to feed his grandmother to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. On no account should you allow a Vogon to read poetry at you.”

By: 6eorge Jetson

6eorge Jetson — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 05:54:05 +0000

You nailed it.

The Constitution as a defender of a limited set of Enumerated Powers is flat-lining on that. Perhaps we can still resuscitate it, but that is a MASSIVE increase in the potential scope of government, IMO even larger in the long run than ObamaCare itself.

Perhaps the ruling will help our side win some short lived victories, but I’m afraid that ruling means the sky’s the limit on what the Statists can do to us when they eventually get an electoral win. Republicans cannot hold the Presidency, House, and Senate forever.

By: 6eorge Jetson

6eorge Jetson — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 05:42:19 +0000

and theorist’s contemplations are informed by experimental evidence.

Someone asked me this weekend if I believed in Global Warming. I replied that while I believe I’ll have another beer but don’t believe that the Cubs will win the World Series this year, I don’t think belief belongs in the climate discussion.

By: Melody Warbington (rwm52)

Melody Warbington (rwm52) — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 03:12:46 +0000

So much so I really don’t have anything to add except that I hope Roberts is haunted by his actions. The rest of us certainly are.

By: Common_Cents

Common_Cents — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:20:17 +0000

By: tcgeol

tcgeol — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:12:09 +0000

By: tcgeol

tcgeol — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:10:13 +0000

Nothing personal, Teresa. Maybe I’m just mistaken, but as far as I know, the ACA was authorized in the bill by the Commerce Clause, not under Congress’ taxing power. If so, Obamacare should have been judged based on the the wording in the law, not by the government’s third-string argument. Roberts had no justification whatsoever to rewrite the law to make it constitutional. He could have ruled it unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, in the process slamming Wickard and making it clear the the federal government’ power under insterstate commerce is very limited.

In no way did he have to rewrite the mandate to make it a tax in order to give us a real victory. If he truly believed that Congress had the power to force a mandate by their taxing power, then he should have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and then sent it back to Congress to officially pass as a tax, and let them die from it. God may use this ridiculous decision for good, but there I can see no reason to hold it in any kind of regard.

By: tcgeol

tcgeol — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:49:05 +0000

Maybe I’m just mistaken, but as far as I know, the ACA was authorized in the bill by the Commerce Clause, not under Congress’ taxing power. If so, Obamacare should have been judged based on the the wording in the law, not by the government’s third-string argument. Roberts had no justification whatsoever to rewrite the law to make it constitutional. He could have ruled it unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, in the process slamming Wickard and making it clear the the federal government’ power under insterstate commerce is very limited.