Usa Thread

[Flashermac]

Good point about Roberts. ... He may become the most influential Chief Justice since Earl Warren.

 

 

Or Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

[kamui]

Chief Justice Roberts - appointed by GW Bush - voted in positive.

 

Re-election of President Obama assured.

 

The whining or wining can cease.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It will definitely heaten up the election campaigns. It's a hard hit for the GOP, but gives them a lot of talking points...

[Flashermac]

<< The court's decision, while a relief to Democrats, could further energize voters who dislike the law to back Republicans in November. And it forces the Obama administration to continue defending the unpopular insurance mandate, which the court has now made clear is legally equivalent to a tax on those who refuse to carry health insurance.

 

On the other hand, the court's blessing could itself shape public opinion of the law, particularly among independents and undecided voters who view the justices as relatively free of the partisan agendas of the government's elected branches. Polls consistently show that the public places greater confidence in the Supreme Court than either Congress or the presidency, although the justices' approval ratings have slipped somewhat over the past year. >>

 

 

 

My link

[dean]

Or Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

The worst SC justice; http://xenohistorian.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/the-worst-supreme-court-justice/

[Redbaron]

Why did GWB appoint a communist/socialist?

When it comes to appointing judges, the prez in power generally appoints "some" who would be considered "from the other side" - ie Republican president appoints a token number of Democratically inclined judges, so they can say they are being fair and equitable. At least that's what I read somewhere. They wouldn't want to *only* install their mates, could look corrupt.

[kamui]

Why did GWB appoint a communist/socialist?

When it comes to appointing judges, the prez in power generally appoints "some" who would be considered "from the other side" - ie Republican president appoints a token number of Democratically inclined judges, so they can say they are being fair and equitable. At least that's what I read somewhere. They wouldn't want to *only* install their mates, could look corrupt.

 

I guess you got it completely wrong. The appointment of supreme court judges can have a lasting effect on the country for decades. Therefore usually presidents chose judges most close to their political interests.

Just have a look at judge Scalia. He is a real right wing judge, who could be called an "activist judge" (a term invented by right wingers actually). He was appointed by Reagan. Here most recent comment on Saclia: Justice Scalia must resign

 

 

It seems everything in the USA becomes more and more politicized and radicalized.

[Steve]

I am not dancing in the streets. I'm happy about it in some ways and the libertarian part of me isnt. Anyway I honestly believe the opposition right who fought it with such a religious zealotry was no more than anger over losing the election and all about Obama. Had a republican president did the same exact thing conservatives would've called him visionary. Clinton massively changed social welfare and nary a peep from the right who have used that issue to get elected. It's all bs and party uber alles, even over America. This actually galvanizes the right and helps Romney i think. Just my guess.

Also I think with the erosion of civil liberties it has minimized the power of the supreme court and there will be fewer pivotal cases.

How the right lost me on this issue was that they fought against it in principle but it was ok for a state though. I know the difference but it ain't much. If they had fought it as strongly within states I'd buy it.

America remains to me like the old Brooklyn dodgers and I'm one if the fans. I love it but they're still "da bums"

[Steve]

Double post

[cavanami]

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Obamacare

 

In a victory for the New Deal bastardization of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can mandate at gunpoint that Americans buy monopolized health care insurance.

 

“The Supreme Court upheld the health care law today in a splintered, complex opinion that appears to give President Obama a major victory,†reports USAToday.

 

In order to avoid arguments that the law is a misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, the Court ruled that the requirement is a tax.

 

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who held the court’s swing vote, dissented. Reading from the bench, Kennedy said he and three conservative justices believe “the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.â€

 

Polls conducted prior to the landmark vote indicate most Americans do not favor the law.

 

Today’s ruling is important because it is the first time in history that the federal government has required citizens enter into contract with private corporations to buy a product or service. It also represents one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution in American history...

 

http://www.infowars.com/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-obamacare/

[dean]

I doubt if Congress will force ex-pats to buy health insurance. If you can give me a level playing field, where insurance policies are available to all Americans for the same, affordable price, I'd be all for business run health insurance. We haven't had that since Nixon approved HMO's (which is how long we haven't had affordable health insurance). If you can show me how an idealized health insurance law can get through Congress in a 2 year term and not be butchered by Republicans and special interests, I'll vote for you in November. Since you can't, I'll stick with the imperfect law that we have now and hope that some members of Congress will take it on themselves to correct the parts of the law that will be problematic.