I am more cautious. From a legal perspective, that of what is proper statutory construction, the Affordable Care Act ruling was simply a matter of properly applying well established rules of statutory construction, and the result was what we got. I think Roberts is concerned about his place in history and he didn't want to damage it more than he already has by joining Scalia's reactionary, hypocritical contentions. Kennedy has a more truly libertarian bent, in which respecting the personhood and freedom of gay people fits, in hias view easily with the personhood and freedoms of the wealthy and, more oddly, corporate "persons."
Tha Dixiecrats and the anti-abortionist Catholics taken over the Republican Party. They are the New Republicans. So why do the Old Republicans, the socially liberal wealthy and corporate Republicans, stay with the New Republicans they so often despise?
Because the Republican Party continues to serve corporate interests and the interest of the very wealthy. The New Republicans and the Old Republicans agree on economic and power issues. They are all for lower taxes, unlimited money in politics, the reduction of government social benefits, and the need for an expensive military.
The US Constitution supports Liberty, which means there will be regular expansion of individual rights. But the Constitution also supports the idea of Liberty that was made sacred by the merchant forces that made Parliament supreme over the King in England. This notion of Liberty makes property rights scared. Citizens United, under the pretext of defending the Liberty/Free Speech rights of all persons, reinforced the supremacy of property rights and big property owners. Here we mean the ownership of income producing property, that is, businesses.
An Old Republican like Roberts can support the expansion of individual liberties while reinforcing the power and political dominance of the wealthy, that is, their right to the ultimate liberty, the concentrated ownership of income producing property and consequently the ownership of the nation's jobs and its mainstream media.
Because the Republican Party continues to serve corporate interests and the interest of the very wealthy. The New Republicans and the Old Republicans agree on economic and power issues. They are all for lower taxes, unlimited money in politics, the reduction of government social benefits, and the need for an expensive military.
The US Constitution supports Liberty, which means there will be regular expansion of individual rights. But the Constitution also supports the idea of Liberty that was made sacred by the merchant forces that made Parliament supreme over the King in England. This notion of Liberty makes property rights scared. Citizens United, under the pretext of defending the Liberty/Free Speech rights of all persons, reinforced the supremacy of property rights and big property owners. Here we mean the ownership of income producing property, that is, businesses.
An Old Republican like Roberts can support the expansion of individual liberties while reinforcing the power and political dominance of the wealthy, that is, their right to the ultimate liberty, the concentrated ownership of income producing property and consequently the ownership of the nation's jobs and its mainstream media.
1
The "conservatives" didn't complain about judicial overreach when the court handed florida to Bush. Funny how judgments change when they are not in your favor...ht
11
It could not be more clear that Republican Presidents appoint Justices with open minds, will to deliberate and vote according to each case presented. Meanwhile Democrat appointees vote in lock-step with their political party, with no sign of even a hint a dissension tolerated! WOW!
1
Wha...? how then do you explain all the many 5-4 decisions, where the 5 Republican appointees have voted "in lockstep."
5
It could not be more clear that between people having the right to choose their health care and their mate freely, that the angry racists really enjoyed President Obama's eulogy and opened their hearts to other points of view.
4
sad taxpayer, this is not clear to me. Please tell me how you measure "open minds". What unit are you using? meters, kilograms, newtons, joules/kelvin?
1
Has anyone considered that the definition of "Conservative" has changed considerably? Justice Kennedy was appointed by President Regan the so-called saint of Conservatives, but today he would have been run out of the Republican Party on a rail as being far too liberal. Ditto President Eisenhower, etc. Let's face it the present day conservatives are not conservative they are radical reactionaries.
28
Exactly. MSM needs to take a poli sci class so they can learn how to properly classify people. Obama is not a liberal, nor is Hillary; Bernie is. The GOP leadership is mainly reactionary today-- surely their constituent in the South are. The word "conservative" has rather a positive ring to it-- these people are possessed of very few positive qualities.
2
There is no conservative majority Roberts has proven all he cares about is what the liberal press is going to say about his legacy
@ gilbert
Actually Roberts' decision was a conservative, non activist one. The problem for Republicans like yourself is that you're not really conservatives. You complain about activist courts but then you want them to be activists on issues that suit your agenda. Roberts in a gentle but very pointed way made fun of Scalia over this very issue.
Actually Roberts' decision was a conservative, non activist one. The problem for Republicans like yourself is that you're not really conservatives. You complain about activist courts but then you want them to be activists on issues that suit your agenda. Roberts in a gentle but very pointed way made fun of Scalia over this very issue.
34
It was nice to see Roberts quote Scalia's prior opinions to show Scalia how inconsistent he is being in his dissent.
I don't often agree with Scalia's opinions, but I generally find them worth reading. This one seems to have been little more than a temper tantrum, full of more wishful thinking than reasoned legal considerations.
I don't often agree with Scalia's opinions, but I generally find them worth reading. This one seems to have been little more than a temper tantrum, full of more wishful thinking than reasoned legal considerations.
19
Roberts is conservative. He is not a radical reactionary. He is not a knee-jerk enemy of government.
4
Could Court decisions on The Affordable Care Act and the Fair Housing Act be going against the Conservative Right Wing because of the kinds of cases they are bringing in the courts. That if the Supreme Court would have decided against The Affordable Care Act and the Fair Housing Act for the reasons that the Conservatives wanted them to, it would have invalidated practically every legislative bill on the books. If people objected to any piece of legislation they could just go over it with a fine comb and bring a court case on any small detail that could by itself be interpreted differently and that the Supreme Court would be able to invalidate that piece of legislation. On the matter of the Fair Housing Act that deciding against disparate consequences of the law would have invalidated decades of settled law, which the Court refused to do. This is because in trying to get their way Right Wing Conservatives are willing to use any means, fair or fowl.
11
The court is ultimately going to punish attempts to use it as a work around for providing legislation. The court can rule on the constitutionality of legislation. But, it cannot legislate.
Where was the coherent Republican alternative to AHC ? - It was the lack of an elephant in the room - that doomed this 'Oxford comma' of a case.
If the Republicans want the public to start taking them seriously, instead of acting like stepnfetchits for the billionaires they should try crafting some legislation, debating the way a war has been waged going on two decades in the middle east, and come up with something a little less stale than cutting taxes for people who hardly notice they're paying them they are so asset accumulated.
Where was the coherent Republican alternative to AHC ? - It was the lack of an elephant in the room - that doomed this 'Oxford comma' of a case.
If the Republicans want the public to start taking them seriously, instead of acting like stepnfetchits for the billionaires they should try crafting some legislation, debating the way a war has been waged going on two decades in the middle east, and come up with something a little less stale than cutting taxes for people who hardly notice they're paying them they are so asset accumulated.
37
never once has a liberal judge went against his or her masters in defense of the law
All appellate judges, liberal or conservative, circuit or Supreme, have come to conclusions that a particular law is not acceptable even though the people who appointed them thought the law was a good idea. Simplistic opposition to a conservative or liberal group of judges is meaningless and poisons the discussion.
3
"his or her masters in defense of the law" - like legal precedence, logic and reason.
1
The fact that the frivolous Obamacare case was even granted shows how conservative this Court is.
This case wouldn't have reached the Court 10 years ago.
This case wouldn't have reached the Court 10 years ago.
32
Exactly. Those who brought the case had no standing. I understand that "standing" is a foundation of SCOTUS acceptance or not. So accepting the case was rather radical in and of itself.
1
Justice Roberts is not insane. that is all.
I mean if they had repealed it. Insurance Companies would have lost. Many politicians would have lost their seats.
Still we have to have terms for these people. The fact that zealots like Alito, Scalia and Thomas are so powerful just should not be.
I mean if they had repealed it. Insurance Companies would have lost. Many politicians would have lost their seats.
Still we have to have terms for these people. The fact that zealots like Alito, Scalia and Thomas are so powerful just should not be.
15
I find the fact ridiculous that Scalia is described as a respected Constitutional jurist. He just makes up Constitutional law to fit his political prejudices as he goes along. He has gone in full circle to even losing judicial arguments against himself, as Judge Roberts used Scali's words to support Robert's opinion in the Affordable Care Act case.
34
His idea of a reasoned legal opinion has gotten to be more like a celebrity roast.
2
Agreed. The validity of a justice’s judgments can be measured in how long it takes for students of history to look on his decisions as archaic. For Scalia it’s already begun and he’s still on the court.
1
The King vs. Burwell decision is merely one case where even a very conservative SCOTUS is forced to reject some of the worst instances of conservative overreach. Unfortunately, the conservative justices have yet to show enough integrity to strike down obvious government support for religion (which violates the First Amendment), blatant voter suppression (which targets Democratic-leaning constituencies), or a host of regulations which impose burdens on abortion providers without a legitimate safety concern. Until they start to change on those issues & more, it is wildly premature to interpret today's decision as evidence of any "Liberal Drift." This is still the most conservative SCOTUS in at least 75 years.
32
It's the Pope. Roberts and Kennedy may be listening to the radical idea that Christianity actually entails social responsibility.
41
Sad day for freedom, but I accept the decision that Americans want more government dependency. We as republicans must move on, we tried but it's over, the seed has been planted you will never be able to kill it. Obamacare is here to stay.
6
Because nothing says freedom like dying due to lack of access to health care, right?
22
If government dependency means poor people not dying prematurely in the ER due to otherwise preventable diseases, count me in!
42
From your lips to God's ears.
2
"What seem like liberal decisions may instead represent conservative overreach." pretty much says it all.
36
To quote Stephen Cobert - "Facts have a well known liberal bias."
49
Yes and this is a big part of why I left the Republican party. My job is all about data, particularly financial data. What Republicans were saying just didn't add up. Throw in the increasing hatred and bigotry and I just couldn't do it anymore.
I wasn't alone. My very conservative mother left the party when she was in her 80s.
I wasn't alone. My very conservative mother left the party when she was in her 80s.
8
My lifelong GOP dad left in his 70s. His observation was that a Goldwater type was no longer considered radical, that had become their new normal.
1
Come now.
They amended this legislation 3 times now.
That is legislating from the bench. It goes beyond the Supreme Court's lawful powers.
If they can repeatedly amend text in a way you like, they can amend it in a way you won't.
and nowhere does the Constitution give the judiciary the power to amend statutes - if words can be "interpreted" to yield a pre-desired result, then very soon democracy itself begins to dissolve into the whims of the state.
They amended this legislation 3 times now.
That is legislating from the bench. It goes beyond the Supreme Court's lawful powers.
If they can repeatedly amend text in a way you like, they can amend it in a way you won't.
and nowhere does the Constitution give the judiciary the power to amend statutes - if words can be "interpreted" to yield a pre-desired result, then very soon democracy itself begins to dissolve into the whims of the state.
1
What do you mean by the "whims of the state?" Are you referring to the specific states or are you referring to the republic? Hmmm.
That a particular decision is applauded by liberals does not make SCOTUS liberal. In this case, it took no more than a sober analysis of what the overall intent of ACA was to decide as they did; and, one would hope, a realization that having federal tax law applied according to one's state or residence would be absurd.
25
The conservatives who voted in favor of subsidies knew, all along, that they could make the paths of their right wing presidential candidates very bumpy, since none of them had a substitute plan. I like the decision, but the reasons are iffy.
1
Yes. It was obviously the intent of those who wrote and voted for the ACA that people who couldn't afford the insurance be able to receive subsidies - or medicaid if their income was lower than that. But don't call the ACA liberal legislation. It's actually enrich the insurance companies legislation. Liberal legislation would result in a single payer system. That ways everyone could have good health care and the nation as a whole would be paying a lot less than we do now for what I'd call erratic health care. Remember, insurance companies add nothing to the quality of health care.
13
And how is it that when a right wing republican catholic justice writes an opinions the opinion is not conservative? Nevermind. Some political "scientist" made up a defintion in order to run some numbers, since, that is scientific. Ideology? Actual choice and lives? Stop bothering them! They are doing their best! They have careers to protect! Someone has to defend this Court's record rather than let it be judged in the basis of its decisions. Or Scalia's get off my lawn dissents when no one is on his lawn. Go away Citizens United, just go away. Look! Over there! A blimp! Let the oligarchs rule in peace.