In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 526
Online now 623 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.
because the supreme court has never reversed itself!
Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.
Fascinating ruling, especially since Kennedy was ready to toss the whole damn law. Wonder if that's why Roberts went the other way. Can't wait to read the opinions tonight.
Obama lied about it being a tax in selling and telling America about the law, saying it was not a new tax, BUT his lawyers argued before SCOTUS that it was a tax. And Roberts agreed with that argument. I think Roberts, who in my opinion is clearly a law intellect standing taller then his colleagues, saw this from the perspective that it is not the court's position to trump a law of such sweeping impact passed by Congress and signed by the POTUS. His deciding opinion will rank as the most pure unpolitical driven decision in our memory. It stems from his firm belief in the complete separation of powers of the three branches, a very conservative approach. I also believe that even though the law is very wrong for the Country's fiscal health, he felt it not his place to judge the legislation by that standard, as others apparently might have done.
This post was edited by tagterp 22 months ago
And if at some point down the road, there is a challenge to the law and they overturn it and reverse a decision, then it will be unconstitutional.
That was my point-if they say it is, it is, until they say otherwise.
Conservative Esquire 06/28/12 11:31
I'm so sick of "moral victory" nonsense like this. The fact is that we lost in the only way that matters: substantively. Roberts stabbed us in the back and so the abomination of ObamaCare survives in all its pernicious glory, to become another sacred cow entitlement like SS and Medicare.
One can't even take solace in the majority's declaration that the mandate was beyond the Commerce Clause, as it amounts to mere dicta and does not establish a precedent moving forward.
We had four solid votes - including the capricious Anthony M. Kennedy - to strike the entire thing and Roberts singlehandedly screwed us and defaced the Constitution.
Goldberg 06/28/12 11:36
I'll have two of whatever Mr. Hood is smoking. This is the end of liberty. There is no course correction that can be made. This was America's Kristallnacht but no Allies to save us.
And my favorite...
Freddy Hayek 06/28/12 11:23
Why are we trying to put perfume on this steaming pile of crap? Roberts is a disgrace on the level of Roger Tanney and patriotic Americans need to make his life a living hell until he either dies of his brain condition or resigns from the Court.
About the only good news in this is that this decision will probably speed along the road to a second civil war. It is going to take a lot of blood for the tree of liberty--withered and dying as it currently is--to regain its vibrancy.
This post was edited by dixonownsyou 22 months ago
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
Upvote. Amazing example of judicial restraint while under extraordinary pressure.
Next year we get affirmative action and the DOMA challenge at the very least. If Obama gets reelected and the gays can get married next year, conservative suicide hotlines will be on maximum overdrive.
paul's point is that just because the court interpreted it as constitutional doesn't mean that its interpretation was right. [tiffles] don't be daft. [/tiffles]
I was opining Roberts' possible perspective, which was discussed throughout this long wait for a decision.
You may award yourself the Andrea Mitchell "Take the Comment Out of Context Award!"
i'm keeping up just fine, and if you think that was roberts' perspective then he is an idiot and not the "law intellect" you make him out to be. whether a law is "sweeping" is completely irrelevant to the court's capacity to "trump" laws. that's ridiculous.
Another funny thought, I think we'll see a huge bump in the polls for "Obamacare" but not necessarily for the reasons you would think. The reason the polling on it has been so bad, is because not only do about 100% of R's hate it, a majority of independents, but poll after poll has found a very large number of D's who don't like it as well.
As Jeff Daniels said in his Newsnight rant, Democrats can be 'losers'. And this is a legit 'win'. Everyone wants to be a winner and so I think we'll see the number of D's supporting Obamacare spike in the next poll released, with a small increase from Indy's. The pundits will attribute the bump to people supporting it now that the Supreme Court has upheld it, but that's just overthinking it. A lot of people just want to be on the side that's winning, particularly when you don't get to very often.
After reading the past few pages of this thread, I'm.throwing my support solidly behind:
Mittens/Tiffles 2012 - How's this going to effect you, dumbass?
You know, it's funny, there's a guy by the name of Alexander Bickel who was a very well-respected legal scholar at Yale, and he wrote a well-known book called "The Least Dangerous Branch" questioning the validity of judicial review and the idea that the Constitution's meaning can only be decided by the judiciary. Ironically, Bickel's work is highly admired within conservative legal circles for its advocacy of "judicial restraint" and he has been cited by Chief Justice Roberts as a major influence for that reason. Conservatives hoisted by their own petard?
In a couple years, when business owners opt to pay the cheaper penalty in lieu of providing hc for all employees, we'll then see if they feel it's a tax or not.
This post was edited by ConGOTERPS 22 months ago
How does this stop the abusing of the ER, when the penalty is less than getting covered? Or are we just going to have to subzide the coverage for low income individuals even more so then the penalty?
Bingo. That was the point. Healthcare for the many, paid for by the few.
There are plenty of idiots around, but Roberts is not one of them.
It's not just that either. I'm currently 120 employees and know others in that range, and we're all discussing cutting up our companies to under 50 employees to get under ther penalty fee too. When that happens, marginal employees who might have held on will get let go in the "restructuring." One thing that hasn't been made clear to me yet is that some think it's a per employee tax for those who end up on the exchanges, and others think that if ANY end up on the exchanges, it's a per employee tax based on total number of employees. If it's the latter, I guarantee serious recession ahead.
A few months ago there was a poll that showed most Americans had no clue Romney passed/enacted any kind of health care bill as governor. Most people in this thread and the election thread are not the norm. Sad, but most Americans don't start paying attention until September (if ever). The Obama campaign is going to hammer this point home, and will put Mitt in the John Kerry I voted for it before I voted against it camp. Americans don't like nuance.
Those in the media saying this is good for Romney I think will be shown to be wrong. Mitt wanted this overturned so it turns this into a smaller subject come election time. Now the right will be screaming, and Mitt will have no choice but to promise to get rid of this law.
astute point, i might argue that I don't think the bill was ever designed as a tax. It's a penalty for noncompliance. the administration has zero interest in collecting money here, they want people to follow the program
frankly i'm most disappointed the commerce clause dicata reinforces gonzalez
roberts is the greatest legal intellectual in a very long time. everyone in the legal community has know this since he was in his 20's
This is exactly what will happen...and this is what the Democrats are really hoping for and have wanted all along - that is that everyone (or almost everyone) is on govt-sponsored health care. In the future I can see that companies can use offering 'their' health care as an incentive to new employees or in keeping very good employees in their firm. Otherwise, they can go to another company that just pays the fine and expects employees to go on the lower quality, govt sponsored health care.
i agree, but that's because there's no chance he believes that incredible nonsense you think he does.
So you don't offer healthcare for any of the 120?
Exactly. It's a hard argument to say that what is good for Massachusetts is terrible and a "job killer" for the rest of the country.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports