StrangeSox

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 05:13 PM) The ruling does not surprise me. The court is basically a corporatist statist body. A law that forces the population to buy certain corporate products or services? excellent Illegals? great, cheap labor. Crack down on corporate bribes in government? no way. unconstitutional. a fair summary of the Roberts court

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 04:33 PM) Really the term is useless. A holding is binding, but dicta is every bit as important for attorneys and judges to explain what the law is on any given issue (using the rationale of a decision is usually just as, if not more, useful than the holding itself). If I were to cite Roberts discussion of CC in this case it's going to be read as precedent. I consider that binding precedent. You're probably right that this is how it'll work in practice.

In other SCOTUS news today, the "Stolen Valor" act was struck down as an infringement on free speech: http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/freedom-o...ing-falsehoods/

Mike Pence (R-IN) likens health care ruling to 9/11: 6/28/12 2:28 PM EDT In a closed door House GOP meeting Thursday, Indiana congressman and gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence likened the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Democratic health care law to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to several sources present."

Well not everyone over at Volokh agrees with you (that's what I've been reading mostly today).

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) SOTU and a actual vote in Congress are not even comparable. You said Republicans never walked out on Obama. Since Obama has never lead either chamber, this was the closest analogue I could find. Anyway, I agree that this is pretty silly and a bit too much of a circus, but I think the outrage is over the top.

It's not entirely clear from what I can tell if the CC discussion by Roberts is binding opinion or dicta. He doesn't need to address the CC to find the mandate a tax and constitutional.

They work very, very hard on fundraising.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:43 PM) No not at all.............instead of voting NO they took there ball and went outside to cry. Do your job you were elected to do and vote no and move on. I'm not sure what the intended point was, but they've essentially done the same thing one way or another.

FWIW a Republican did refuse to attend the SOTU this year: http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2012/0...he-union/55244/

This tactic won't actually prevent anything from happening, right? It's not like the WI or IN state walkouts.

:lolhitting :lolhitting :lolhitting

Can a mod please change the title of this thread to OBAMACARE MEGATHREAD OBAMA OBAMA CARE CARE

It's widely referred to as "Obamacare" by advocates and denouncers alike. It's better than the catchy slogan "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Just think of it like everyone calling tissue "Kleenex"

The Republican Alternative To Obamacare Is - More Obamacare?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 02:09 PM) Im sorry buddy.

The AP had to tell its reporters to stop making fun of CNN: http://jimromenesko.com/2012/06/28/ap-orde...e-ruling-wrong/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 12:17 PM) So, based on this decision, there's basically nothing to stop Congress from implementing just about any sort of measure to collect funds from the populace so long as it looks like a tax. Hell, they don't even have to CALL it a tax. Just make it work like a tax. *opens wallet wider* Ginsburg's dissent hits a very important point here: There has always been a limiting principle here, and it's the ballot box. Congress is free to make all sorts of bad policy, and bad policy isn't necessarily unconstitutional policy. The remedy for that is a better Congress through the ballot box.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) Bah, if he wants to be angry about Obama for changing positions, feel free to let him be, because anyone who take the position that politicians should never change positions on anything of major importance is not only being silly, but will never find a politician they can cast a vote for. Mittens changed his position and thinks his own accomplishment was terrible. Don't care that he changed position. Care a lot that he has turned his back on a very effective bill. At least in December he was still defending Romneycare. He is making a federalism distinction, saying that states can enforce this but the federal government can't. I don't know how well that will play to a national audience, though. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitt-romney-def...le-i-represent/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) We see a similar effect when the IRS chooses which tax-cheats to actually use its enforcement efforts against. Or when various levels of government decide to prosecute certain crimes or not. Executives throughout the country are given plenty of discretion in enforcing the law, but not total discretion and it varies by jurisdiction and what law they're enforcing.

Upset about today's SCOTUS decision? Want to leave the U.S.? Here's a list of other industrialized countries without universal healthcare:

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 01:50 PM) So Romney wins and tells HHS fuggedaboudit. Tells IRS not to collect the "penalty". He has some ability to that, yes. It's essentially what happened with the EPA under Bush.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) The word choices in Kennedy's dissent suggests that it might well have been written as a majority opinion prior to a flip by Roberts. It even refers to the arguments of Justice Ginsberg as being from "The dissent". David Bernstein on Volokh was conspiracy-mongering on that early on. Two problems. First, Ginsberg's opinion is a partial concurrence and partial dissent and is listed as such. She dissented from Roberts on the Commerce Clause section while the STAK dissent agreed with him. Second, were the STAK staffers too incompetent to do a "find and replace?" This is just being used to feed the "Obama bullied Roberts into this decision" narrative.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 01:44 PM) I have to laugh at this keeping coming up, when Obama was given universal praise by the left for switching positions on gay marriage. Romney has obviously switched positions here, just like Obama did. Universal praise, except the criticism by me and others on this board for taking so god damned long to come to this position. Romney has also not disowned Romneycare, he's making a federalism argument. It's not exactly analogous.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) Bah, no one's going to pay that much attention unless Obama makes that a feature of his debate defense. Romney still felt it fully appropriate to go out today and reiterate that on day 1 he'll repeal the full bill without saying what he would do instead, which is all he's said for the last year. He'd also make the most popular components, guaranteed issue, community rating and elimination of lifetime caps, part of his solution. But without a mandate. And less government involvement.