Judge Roberts backlash

@snood,

snood wrote:

I’ll stipulate that there are definite differences if you will stipulate that there are similarities.

Deal.

0 Replies

Yeah Judge Scalia is really deep and logical, using a line straight from a republican talking point.

Quote:

"Could you define the market -- everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli," Scalia asked during the second day of oral arguments.

source

Admittedly the government's lawyer didn't give a very good off the cuff response.

Quote:

"No, that's quite different. That's quite different. The food market, while it shares that trait that everybody's in it, it is not a market in which your participation is often unpredictable and often involuntary. It is not a market in which you often don't know before you go in what you need, and it is not a market in which, if you go in and -- and seek to obtain a product or service, you will get it even if you can't pay for it," Verrilli said.

This from a blogger down below.

Quote:

The difference is that someone can't go into a supermarket when hungry and needing to engage in the "food market" and just walk out for free with food to cure their ailement. They are expected to pay or they will not get the service/product; either via their credit card, debit card, cash, WIC/Food Stamps, Monopoly Money, etc. There are no governing laws (state/federal) saying you MUST feed those who are hungry. There is no professional ethics code by which grocery-store managers operate saying they MUST feed those who cannot afford food. That's the difference, Justice Scalia.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Your interest in understanding the SCOTUS’ individual rationalizations for votes is yours; you presumed it should be others’, as well.

You've got to be joking. I said "If all you're interested in is counting votes, that's a perfectly understandable position to take." You, in effect, then responded: "Yes, all I'm interested in is counting votes, I don't want to understand their reasons for voting, and I resent you for suggesting that I don't want to understand their reasons for voting." Really, it takes a special kind of effort to get all indignant about someone suggesting that you should do exactly what you admit you're doing. There are plenty of other hothouse lilies on this board whose precious sensibilities are shattered at the slightest bump. I'll go to them the next time I need this kind of **** in my life.

snood wrote:

I stand by my suggestion you leave off that kind of presumption. All that about my "indignance" (is that like uppitiness)?

Nope, it's like being a dick. That transcends all racial classifications.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

snood wrote:
Your interest in understanding the SCOTUS’ individual rationalizations for votes is yours; you presumed it should be others’, as well.

You've got to be joking. I said "If all you're interested in is counting votes, that's a perfectly understandable position to take." You, in effect, then responded: "Yes, all I'm interested in is counting votes, I don't want to understand their reasons for voting, and I resent you for suggesting that I don't want to understand their reasons for voting." Really, it takes a special kind of effort to get all indignant about someone suggesting that you should do exactly what you admit you're doing. There are plenty of other hothouse lillies on this board whose precious sensibilities are shattered at the slightest bump. I'll go to them the next time I need this kind of **** in my life.

snood wrote:
I stand by my suggestion you leave off that kind of presumption. All that about my "indignance" (is that like uppitiness)?

Nope, it's like being a dick. That transcends all racial classifications.

Your opinion is noted, sir. And the sentiment is mutual.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

It is.

I do have a problem with Roberts looking beyond the legal issues presented to him, but he owes no one group anything, unless that group is the American people.

One of the conservative blogger wrote how he regretted his mocking of Kennedy since in this case Kennedy "was there for us."

Kennedy didn't reach his decision to support the Right, anymore than Roberts abandoned "his people" by reaching his.

No one knows what Roberts was thinking and we never will unless and until he writes his memoirs or one of his clerks violates a sacrosanct tradition and blabs.

I would prefer to think that he simply ruled as he saw the law, but I don't think that's the case.

I would hate to think that he capitulated to the blatant and egrigious attempts at intimidation by Obama and Lehey, but who knows for sure?

I do think however that he crafted an opinion that was something far more than a cave-in.

I also think that he he understandably tried to send a message to both "sides" of the court. I don't think that's his role in the context of a decision, but it's pretty clear that he did.

He also sent a message to the American people: "Stop trying to rely on the Supreme Court to resolve your political differences."

Preserving ObamaCare by virtue of the government's power to tax was not much of a gift to Obama, and it helped underscore what we should appreciate about our government.

It will do whatever it takes to have it's way.

Recently, "taxes" have been radioactive and ObamaCare would never have made it out of the Senate if the "mandate" was framed as a tax.

Obama knew this. Why else would he have been so adamant that it wasn't a tax? Because he thinks mandates are so superior to taxes? Ask Hillary Clinton that question.

Ultimately, I think that Roberts at least tried to have it all his way, and only time will tell if he succeeded. From a political standpoint I think he was brilliant.

I just don't think our Supreme Court Justices should be politically brilliant.

Note that despite the anticipated new found love for Roberts by many on the Left, the good old NY Times isn't getting suckered in. Take a look at their Sunday editorial.

I just don't believe that Roberts is a Sutter, someone who was willing to fake his judical philosphy in order to get appointed.

Certainly, prior decisions don't suggest as much, and I think future ones will bear this out as well.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

He he. You should write for the Onion.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

And you should write for...

Well, I don't really think you should write for any publication. I doubt even Redbook would accept one of your submissions.

1 Reply

Actually, the Roberts vote may have helped the repubs win in November.
By allowing Obamacare to stand, and by calling it a tax, that goes against what Obama promised about no new taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.

You all know as well as I do that the repubs are going to take full advantage of that and blast that in every campaign ad they make.
So, winning this battle may cost Obama the war.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And you should write for...

Well, I don't really think you should write for any publication. I doubt even Redbook would accept one of your submissions.

I just read your blue veined thread. Lame, dude.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

I think this is wishful thinking. A win is a win and everyone loves a winner.

The political battle is for the middle and the middle doesn't care at all about this tax vs. penalty thing. This only matters to us partisans who already are in the bag for one side or the other.

This decision will rile up the bases-- but the only real effect will be a marked increase in internet bickering.

This "look look it's a tax" thing is not going to change any votes.

0 Replies

A sensible response. The entire idea of this thread is ludicrous. Roberts is there for life, or until he retires. Effectively, there can be no "backlash."

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Actually, the Roberts vote may have helped the repubs win in November.
By allowing Obamacare to stand, and by calling it a tax, that goes against what Obama promised about no new taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.

You all know as well as I do that the repubs are going to take full advantage of that and blast that in every campaign ad they make.
So, winning this battle may cost Obama the war.

Not if the facts get any light during all the "blasting". The "tax" is exactly the same penalty the people in Massachusetts pay who choose not to buy health insurance. Only about 2% of them have ever had to pay it. The other 98% of them are covered and the state plan is wildly popular.

The Republicans must think their transparently bogus whining about this "tax" (a word they have to demonize because doing so distracts from their insane ineffective Grover Norquist philosophy of soaking the poor and middle class) is going to somehow undermine Obamacare going forward.

I think they're going to find that boat has sailed, and they are going to have to build some other bogus "issue" or "scandal" up - after all, the alternative is to try to actually make a positive argument in favor of their candidate, and their plans for the running of the country. And we know they can't do that.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Meanwhile every factcheck will point out that the GOP is way off base on their "new tax on the middle class" argument.

It all comes down to whether the independents want to fall for something that isn't true.

1 Reply

@parados,

And meanwhile, if people accept the penalty IS a tax then Romney is running on a record of the highest tax increase in Mass history when he was governor.

1 Reply

@parados,

There it is again, a Democrat talking point that we can always rely upon parados to spout.

Let's ignore all sensible considerations of this issue and assume you are right: Romney engineered the highest tax in Mass history.

So what?

Anyone who considers ObamaCare a loathsome tax isn't going to come to the conclusion that he or she can't vote for Romney because he's guilty of the same sin when he was the governor of MA.

Their choice is to vote for Obama who is all about the loathsome tax and Romney who has pledged he will repeal it.

Perhaps he's lying and he won't, but if one hates ObamaCare it makes more sense to vote for the guy who may do away with it than the guy who gave birth to it.

You guys just keep making this specious argument without a moment's pause to consider if it makes any sense.

3 Replies

Finn:

Quote:

There it is again, a Democrat talking point that we can always rely upon parados to spout.

Let's ignore all sensible considerations of this issue and assume you are right: Romney engineered the highest tax in Mass history.

So what?

An interesting conclusion coming from someone from the right - the right, to whom taxes are supposedly anathema. the rightwing - which has pledged its undying fealty to Grover Northquist and his mindless "oath". But, onward...

Quote:

Anyone who considers ObamaCare a loathsome tax isn't going to come to the conclusion that he or she can't vote for Romney because he's guilty of the same sin when he was the governor of MA.

This might make a little sense if you had just said "anyone who considers Obama loathsome...", because that would've been an honest rendering of the true nature of Obama's opposition. But you can't say that - that would be too much like admitting he's hated for reasons you can only speak about amongst yourselves - we understand, Finn.

But what you say here is ludicrous on the face of it. Why would Romney's tax increases get a pass or be less "sinful"?

Quote:

Their choice is to vote for Obama who is all about the loathsome tax and Romney who has pledged he will repeal it.

Yeah, he's pledged he will repeal it, but he has to do it while never acknowledging that it was fashioned after his Massachusetts brainchild, and while trying not to mention that the mandate is a "tax", because that would connect, again, to him and his signature legislation as Governor.

And anyway, Obama is only "all about the loathsome tax" to those who are fixated on only that aspect of the Affordable Healthcare Legislation to the exclusion of everything else.

Quote:

Perhaps he's lying and he won't, but if one hates ObamaCare it makes more sense to vote for the guy who may do away with it than the guy who gave birth to it.

I'm pretty sure this doesn't even make sense to you, Finn. But I know you have to maintain a constant diatribe against Obama and Obama's supporters, because you have no positive case to make for Romney.

Quote:

You guys just keep making this specious argument without a moment's pause to consider if it makes any sense.

And you kneejerk your specious arguments against anything Obama with even less consideration for rationality or basis in sanity.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

There it is again, a Democrat talking point that we can always rely upon parados to spout.

Facts are democratic talking points?

Where does that leave you?

Quote:

Their choice is to vote for Obama who is all about the loathsome tax and Romney who has pledged he will repeal it.

So they can vote for someone that didn't create a wide reaching tax, loathsome or otherwise, or someone that has pledged to do something he will not be able to do? I see where this is going. Facts are democratic talking points. Fantasies are what you are left with.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Your missing the point. The fight is not with republicans or democrats but those middle of the road folks who have not made up their minds. If they see Romney decrying the same thing he had himself as governor of Mass; it is not going to lend any credence for those folks and will cost Romney those votes of which he sorely needs to put him over the top in the neck and neck race. Probably why he is dropping the whole thing and trying to get back to the economy

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

but if one hates ObamaCare it makes more sense to vote for the guy who may do away with it than the guy who gave birth to it.

vote for the sperm donor but not the birth parent

cool

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Roberts is there for life, or until he retires. Effectively, there can be no "backlash."

Yes, there can be a "backlash", but it would be suicide for the repubs to try it.
Even a USSC justice can be impeached and removed from the bench.
However, it would be the height of stupidity for the repubs or dems to try it.

1 Reply

Judge Roberts backlash

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know