In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 464
Online now 204 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
yeah, i do
Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.
Were those billable hours??? hehehe.
This post was edited by bbpgtr 2 years ago
"pass the bill so we can find out what's in it!"
He does, rarely, ask questions. I think the last time was 2006. I had a group lunch with Judtice Thomas a few years back....and this came up. He had a very very good point. Oral Arguments on the S. Ct. level are an unneccessary dog and pony show. There are literally over 200 Amicus briefs in this case. Everything that was argued has been covered - in detail - multiple times. He reads all the briefs. Oral Arguments are just pointless at that level.
He has a point. Its more tradition than anything of merit to the Justices.
Yes, that is part of it, but it also has a lot to do with his upbringing. He's stated before how he essentially grew up talking in a particular dialect that kids in school used to make fun of him for...so he grew up very uncomfortable about speaking publicly and became more of a listener than a speaker and that's how he learns best.
Here is a good read including comments from Paul Clement alluding to the importance of the briefs vs. oral arguments.
It's all about the brief.
That was a good read.
Is the current thinking that this still all comes down to Kennedy?
If the law is going to get overturned? Yes.
If the law is going to get upheld. Maybe not.
Wouldn't it be ironic if a KENNEDY killed this or something
Justice Kennedy:Ted Kennedy as Obamacare:May Jo Kopecne
I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head, but I went with an upvote ...
Jeez, Verrilli is getting destroyed by commentators for his performance...
Right. I think Roberts may break off and rule it's constitutional if Kennedy does too, but not without Kennedy.
HoopheadVII: "Guess you won't say, "Sorry I'm a little off today" anytime again soon; Eaglesception is a bitch"
you know how democrats mock republicans for saying things like "i know he failed, but that's because he wasn't a REAL conservative!" the liberal equivalent is to say things like "democrats are bad at politics" or "we're just bad at getting our message across!" not that there's anything wrong with the message itself.
This post was edited by phatphelix 2 years ago
HMO Index is rising since the argument which is taken to mean that traders are betting the law is either all in or all out--Supremes unlikely to "sever" the mandate and figure out which parts of the rest of the law stay or go.
striking down only part of the law is stupid. just a judicial version of a line-item veto.
Reading 2700 pages of Obamacare BS = cruel and unusual punishments. lol.
Scalia Likens Reading Obamacare to Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
Today Pelosi chimes in saying that dems wrote the bill in a way that's constitutional. How would she know if she needed to pass it to see what was in it. LOL!!!
Pelosi On Obamacare: "We Wrote Our Bill In A Way That Was Constitutional"
"I'm a supporter of judicial review, I honor the Constitution in that regard," Pelosi said to reporters. "That's why we wrote our bill in a way that was Constitutional. I still feel pretty confident about it. And if and when -- this game is not over. In March Madness, what happens when your team doesn't win one -- well wait a minute, let's have the game."
W...T...F... she has clearly lost it.
Eh, not really. I agree with you that it's looking increasingly unlikely they do that, but they do that regularly. If a sub-section of a law is unconstitutional, the whole law doesn't typically get tossed.
Some possible limiting principles floating around legal circles.
She never had it.
Go away, KA!
You have to have it to lose it...she is the classic empty suit in politics who got where she is because of the family she came from. I will give her credit though...amassing a fortune north of 50 million while 'serving the public' is quite the accomplishment though.
i'm not saying it doesn't happen, i'm saying it's stupid when it does.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports