Thu Jun 28, 2012, 04:46 PM
Tx4obama (28,772 posts)
Did minority's uncompromising insistence on invalidating entire law push Roberts to join moderates..
" ... Did the minority's uncompromising insistence on invalidating the entire law push Roberts to join the moderates in upholding it? ... "
Health Care Dissent: Here's What The Conservative Wing Wanted To Happen
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney, reacting to the Supreme Court's health care ruling Thursday, said, "I agree with the dissent."
The dissent tosses out the entire health care law, dismissing the case for it as "feeble" and a "vast judicial overreach." It argues that "against a mountain of evidence," its backers offer only the "flimsiest of indications to the contrary."
Four of the five Republican appointees on the Court agreed with this interpretation, and it would have carried the day if Chief Justice John Roberts had joined them. Had he done so, the "entire statute" -- meaning the entire law, from beginning to end -- would have been invalidated, including provisions that had already gone into effect. Strangely, the dissenting justices argue that even constitutional provisions must be ruled unconstitutional because "the Actís other provisions would not have been enacted without" it central elements, the mandate and the Medicaid provision. The justices never reveal how they know what would have happened in the alternate reality they posit.
Did the minority's uncompromising insistence on invalidating the entire law push Roberts to join the moderates in upholding it? We won't know until the next tell-all book on the court, but below are excerpts from the dissent, signed by Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia.
Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/health-care-dissent_n_1634514.html
5 replies, 746 views
Did minority's uncompromising insistence on invalidating entire law push Roberts to join moderates.. (Original post)
Response to Tx4obama (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 04:50 PM
HopeHoops (47,675 posts)
1. I think it was because Obama "played chess" and backed him into a corner.
Since many of the provisions are already in effect, overturning it would be bad for the GOP politically. He knew the other four were going to vote as they did and most likely was just the fall guy to keep it in place. What I'm REALLY shocked about is how little of it they could find a hole in. The "throw it all out" thing is just silly.
Response to Tx4obama (Reply #2)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 06:34 PM
Cosmocat (5,393 posts)
5. Roberts simply allowed the other four arsehats to be partisan clowns
In the end, the supreme court's number one priority is to support corporations and the ultra rich.
That is why they did the right thing, in mass, except Scalia, of course, over the Arizona immigration bill, while they did their duty to protect Citizens United.
While, sadly, HCR IS in fact a small step in the right direction, at the end of the day, the fulcrum of it ...
Drives people into PRIVATE INSURANCE COVERAGE.
Roberts had to side with the "liberal" judges on this to legitimize the decision and to provide cover for the other wingnuts to throw bombs and feed the sheep that vote Rs their meat.
THAT was that this decision was.
Response to Tx4obama (Original post)
Thu Jun 28, 2012, 06:27 PM
PoliticAverse (5,535 posts)
4. Roberts could have rejected the idea it was a valid tax but rejected the argument the entire law...
had to be overturned. Then a compromise that the mandate is overturned but the rest of the
law remains could have been reached with the 4 liberal members. If you look at what happened
with the medicaid expansion issue you can see such a compromise: