POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
I think that's it mainly. As Chief, Roberts is worried about such things, and about how the Court is perceived. Which, boiled, translates as style over subtance.
But Scalia is in rare form in dissent. "Pure appleasuce", heh. He's like a pig in mud in this case, where the points he makes are largely irrefutable, and Roberts knows it, but is forced to take a silly position because he wants a particular outcome (rather than simply applying the law). Which of course has been the conservative complaint about liberal justices/judges for decades.....
Yeah I just saw the headline, not the count. Assumed Kennedy broke with the good guys.
The excerpts I've seen from Scalia's dissent basically echo my feelings. Will probably read the whole opinion this evening.
The excerpts I've seen from Scalia's dissent basically echo my feelings. Will probably read the whole opinion this evening.
four justices are needed in order for the court to take up a case, right?
judging by his mental gymnastics in both this one and NFIB v Sebelius, it would appear that Roberts wants absolutely nothing to do with this tar baby. I guess Kennedy wanted to hear the case, then voted against the plaintiffs anyways?
judging by his mental gymnastics in both this one and NFIB v Sebelius, it would appear that Roberts wants absolutely nothing to do with this tar baby. I guess Kennedy wanted to hear the case, then voted against the plaintiffs anyways?
There is literally no way you can read the law as written and uphold the way it is being interpreted.
We as a nation as we know it are in serious trouble. The checks and balances no longer work. Our leaders are no longer concerned about what's good for the countries long term survival and growth.
A bill should never be passed hoping the Supreme Court doesn't shoot it down. That's insanity.
Our president and his administration is supposed to enforce all laws, not just ones they deem acceptable. That's not how any of this works. A law is a law, if he doesn't like it then try to change it, if that doesn't work then it's up to the people to decide to replace elected officials in elections.
A bill should never be passed hoping the Supreme Court doesn't shoot it down. That's insanity.
Our president and his administration is supposed to enforce all laws, not just ones they deem acceptable. That's not how any of this works. A law is a law, if he doesn't like it then try to change it, if that doesn't work then it's up to the people to decide to replace elected officials in elections.
Yeah, hard to get there. It can only be that Roberts doesn't want to see chaos, or get blamed for chaos, or see more polling with headlines "Majority of US Citizens Have No Faith in Surpreme Court; Approval at all time low".
Which certainly is a departure from just calling balls and strikes, as he famously put it in his confirmation hearing.....
The irony is if I'm right about all that - and it does seem self-evident - then that kind of cynicism should theoretically result in less trust in the Court than if he'd simply ruled according to law....
Do they cite any precedent for taking a law that is plainly, clearly and unambiguously written, and interpreting it in a way that clearly contradicts the language of the law?
Roberts is positioning himself as the new Justice Kennedy. He is so vain and petulant that he wants the be THE swing vote on every case and have his opinion courted. Only explanation I have, short of mental defect.
Just an observation, United Healthcare stock is up over 3% today, and is now up about 250% since Obamacare was passed. Remember that when the huge rate increases come again this year.
Regardless of the merits of the case, I feel like SCOTUS is going to rule states don't have to recognize gay marriages in other states.
Gay marriage isn't a government power grab, so they can sacrifice that to get some political cover for the absolute travesty they brought down today. The entire story will be about how balanced the court is, and the loudest vocal minority in the country will drown out anyone talking about today.
Gay marriage isn't a government power grab, so they can sacrifice that to get some political cover for the absolute travesty they brought down today. The entire story will be about how balanced the court is, and the loudest vocal minority in the country will drown out anyone talking about today.
I thought that was considered to be one of the least likely tacks this particular court would take?
I have no idea. I'm just assuming a ruling viewed as anti-gay will take the heat off the ruling that was anti-Constitution and rule of law.
"Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved."
Scalia sums up what came down today pretty well.
Scalia sums up what came down today pretty well.
A travesty and another serious black eye on this once unimpeachable bastion of the US. There's absolutely no way a halfway intelligent individual can read the statute and interpret it the way the the majority did. The only way to make that work is to have your mind made up prior to hearing a word of argument from either side. Which, evidently several of the Justices do on a great many cases. Hell, Ginsberg has officiated a same-sex marriage - which side do you think she'll vote for (and I'm personally for same-sex marriage rights)?
Way too many lightweights on the SCOTUS currently, on both sides. Reading some of the opions on other cases, I just shake my head at the poor logic and tortured reasoning these people utilize to get their own way on various issues. This SCOTUS will be forever be scoffed at by history. It's embarrassing to see the fruits of Ivy League law schools make some of the decisions they've made. Too much personal bias and ideological politics figure into many of these bizarre decisions arrived through mental contortions of epic proportions.
Way too many lightweights on the SCOTUS currently, on both sides. Reading some of the opions on other cases, I just shake my head at the poor logic and tortured reasoning these people utilize to get their own way on various issues. This SCOTUS will be forever be scoffed at by history. It's embarrassing to see the fruits of Ivy League law schools make some of the decisions they've made. Too much personal bias and ideological politics figure into many of these bizarre decisions arrived through mental contortions of epic proportions.
Too big to fail.
We shoud hail Gruber as one of the few times we get the straight skinny about a political operation.
We shoud hail Gruber as one of the few times we get the straight skinny about a political operation.
Maybe, just maybe, it's time to make this work on a bipartisan platform. I don't like it in it's current form, but if both sides would put their partisan agenda aside, now that the GOP has exhausted almost every avenue to repeal it, and work together, it could be a much better plan.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Black guy keep winning...kicking butt and taking names. Will probaby go down as more accomplished than Reagan.
This ruling just has to further hurt...
Both sides? WTF. One side has done nothing but put all their collective efforts into overturning the law. please GTFO with this partisan BS on both sides.
Beheading and explosions in an ISIS terrorist attack in France.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-Islamist-flag-industrial-estate-France.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-Islamist-flag-industrial-estate-France.html
Jesus Christ I hate John Roberts. How can you possibly reconcile that statement with yesterday's opinion?
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be.
Wow! They're killing the Confederate flag, they uphold Obamacare and NOW they legalize gay marriage!
Chick Fil A is gonna be ROCKIN' this afternoon!
Chick Fil A is gonna be ROCKIN' this afternoon!
I haven't posted here in forever, but I have to ask a question on this gay marriage issue. If being gay is something that you cannot change about yourself and/or something you are born with then isn't it wrong to deny such a basic thing as marriage to people who cannot control this aspect of themselves?
1. You're starting from the premise that marriage is a basic human right. Which is dumb. No one is being denied anything.
2. You probably aren't going to find many people here who give a shit one way or the other about gay marriage per se. You'll find more people who think the fed gov should get out of marriage entirely. And if gay marriage is allowed by reason of the Constitution, you cannot logically prevent other groups from getting married. Incest, polygamy, etc. So the federal government should stop discriminating against unmarried people (or married people in some case) and just back out of the marriage business altogether.
2. You probably aren't going to find many people here who give a shit one way or the other about gay marriage per se. You'll find more people who think the fed gov should get out of marriage entirely. And if gay marriage is allowed by reason of the Constitution, you cannot logically prevent other groups from getting married. Incest, polygamy, etc. So the federal government should stop discriminating against unmarried people (or married people in some case) and just back out of the marriage business altogether.
This is what amazes me about the left and their ever changing shifting platform whenever a topic arises.
On abortion, it's "my body my decision."
But when a Christian bakery doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, they're not on board with "my business, my decision."
What happened to "stay out of my bedroom" motto? Then proceed to make everyone apart of it.
When it comes to God, their savior is science and nature and the LGBT claims they're born this way and nature made them this way.
Okay. If nature made you gay then didn't nature predetermine that you should not be parents but they don't like that. They think they should be allowed to have kids too.
It's just insane how much control this group has now. Gays and trans make up about 3% of our population yet seem to influence everything now and take up an insane amount of media coverage. It is mind blowing what has transpired under this administration when you look back a decade ago.
On abortion, it's "my body my decision."
But when a Christian bakery doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, they're not on board with "my business, my decision."
What happened to "stay out of my bedroom" motto? Then proceed to make everyone apart of it.
When it comes to God, their savior is science and nature and the LGBT claims they're born this way and nature made them this way.
Okay. If nature made you gay then didn't nature predetermine that you should not be parents but they don't like that. They think they should be allowed to have kids too.
It's just insane how much control this group has now. Gays and trans make up about 3% of our population yet seem to influence everything now and take up an insane amount of media coverage. It is mind blowing what has transpired under this administration when you look back a decade ago.
The Constitution and rule of law are only applicable if its popular now.
Why do States even have Governments? It's apparent the federal government has all the power, and just seats the states if they disagree. This is not what the founding fathers had in my mind.
Why do States even have Governments? It's apparent the federal government has all the power, and just seats the states if they disagree. This is not what the founding fathers had in my mind.
Similar threads
