« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Roberts 2 decades from now 

By: clo in ALEA | Recommend this post (1)
Sat, 30 Jun 12 2:56 PM | 95 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 08744 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 08743 by Cactus Flower)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Hi Cactus Flower,

I'd like to believe you are correct.

However, if Robert's did change his vote at the last minute as inferred here, then I think the 'legacy' of The Robert's Court trumped.

Paul Campos was the guest on the Young Turks, that I referenced. This is a snipett.

Did John Roberts switch his vote?

Updated: The dissents suggest the court was set to overturn Obamacare -- until Roberts suddenly changed his vote
By Paul Campos

.....
It is impossible for a lawyer to read even the first few pages of the dissent without coming away with the impression that this is a majority opinion that at the last moment lost its fifth vote. Its structure and tone are those of a winning coalition, not that of the losing side in the most controversial Supreme Court case in many years. But when we get to Page 13, far more conclusive evidence appears: No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.”

more:
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/did_john_roberts_switch_his_vote/




Avatar

DO SOMETHING!


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Roberts 2 decades from now
By: Cactus Flower
in ALEA
Sat, 30 Jun 12 12:33 AM
Msg. 08743 of 54959

I really don't agree, clo.

I think Roberts is sensible enough to recognise his job is not to be a politician.

There are things the democratic process is permitted to achieve. As a supreme court judge, sometimes this means one's own political belief should be set aside.

Roberts did what he believed was the democratic thing. He permitted Congress and the President to enact a law that it is within its scope to enact. SCOTUS is not the opposition party.

Obviously he doesn't like it. But it is not the job of the Supreme Court to like or dislike policy. It is to say whether the Constitution admits it.

The fact the court divides so often along party lines tells you that most of what they are deciding is party political. True in this case also.

He voted to allow the government to govern because they won the right to do so at the ballot box. I think this was a highly principled decision. The Supreme Court should not strike down a law like this along party lines. If it did, why bother writing law as a Democrat? Why vote at all?

It is, after all, a kind of tax. With an exemption for those who pay for health insurance.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next