Trump reportedly leaning toward Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

[Sanguine]

I have no real problem with Barrett other than my fear she cannot be confirmed, and that the motivation of her supporters has little to do with the Supreme Court, and everything to do with "making heads explode".      @Emjay

I don't know where you get that.  Certainly not here.

[jpsb]

Roberts didn't "rewrite the ACA".  That's such bullshit.  The mandate always was codified as part of the Internal Revenue Code, the same as with any tax.   I work with the damn thing everyday.   The criticism of Roberts by conservatives is, IMO, appalling.   He upheld legislation conservatives didn't like, and he's been crucified for it ever since.   I am sick and tired of both sides - but especially conservatives who SHOULD KNOW BETTER - who demand that judges overturn the work of the political branches they disagree with, while screaming "judicial activism!" when it's done with respect to legislation they favor.

JUDGES HAVE NO BUSINESS LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH.   Period.  I am sick and tire of the hypocrisy - and the intellectual laziness.

I think I'll just go with Judge Barrett on this
Barrett said of Roberts:

    ... pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did – as a penalty – he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power … [A] judge who adopts an interpretation inconsistent with the text fails to enforce the statute that commanded majority support. If the majority did not enact a "tax," interpreting the statute to impose a tax lacks democratic legitimacy … it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.

[Jazzhead]

I think I'll just go with Judge Barrett on this
Barrett said of Roberts:

    ... pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did – as a penalty – he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power … [A] judge who adopts an interpretation inconsistent with the text fails to enforce the statute that commanded majority support. If the majority did not enact a "tax," interpreting the statute to impose a tax lacks democratic legitimacy … it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.

And Barrett is wrong, with respect to Justice Roberts.   It would have been illegitimate to defy the political branches by deep-sixing a 2000-page piece of legislation on a technicality.  The individual mandate was described in the Tax Code, and  enforced by means of the Tax Code.   Individuals reported compliance by means of attaching information to their individual tax returns.   IT WAS DESIGNED AS, AND IN FACT WAS, A TAX.   

Don't be a fool.  If Roberts had overturned the ACA on a technicality, it would have been the height of judicial activism and arrogance.   Is that what Barrett would have done?  THEN SHE'S NO CONSERVATIVE!

Replacing the ACA is the responsibility of the political branches.   The individual mandate is now gone - the system worked exactly as the Founders intended.  And that's because the process wasn't short-circuited by an unelected judge.   

[Jazzhead]

I don't know where you get that.  Certainly not here.

Hey, if she's nominated, I'll support her.  But I'll bet she can't be confirmed.   

[INVAR]

And Barrett is wrong, with respect to Justice Roberts.   It would have been illegitimate to defy the political branches by deep-sixing a 2000-page piece of legislation on a technicality.

This is why absolutely NO ONE should ever regard anything you ever have to say on this board as anything but Leftist Pablum and bullshit.

[Jazzhead]

This is why absolutely NO ONE should ever regard anything you ever have to say on this board as anything but Leftist Pablum and bullshit.

Why?  Do you want liberal judges throwing out conservative legislation on a technicality?   Roberts is a Constitutional conservative who understands the Court's role. 
     

[INVAR]

Why?  Do you want liberal judges throwing out conservative legislation on a technicality?   Roberts is a Constitutional conservative who understands the Court's role. 
   

Pathetic and laughable.

[GrouchoTex]

Roberts didn't "rewrite the ACA".  That's such bullshit.  The mandate always was codified as part of the Internal Revenue Code, the same as with any tax.   I work with the damn thing everyday.   The criticism of Roberts by conservatives is, IMO, appalling.   He upheld legislation conservatives didn't like, and he's been crucified for it ever since.   I am sick and tired of both sides - but especially conservatives who SHOULD KNOW BETTER - who demand that judges overturn the work of the political branches they disagree with, while screaming "judicial activism!" when it's done with respect to legislation they favor.

JUDGES HAVE NO BUSINESS LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH.   Period.  I am sick and tire of the hypocrisy - and the intellectual laziness.

Did the ACA violate the Commerce clause or did it not?

The case wasn't about a health care "tax" being called a penalty or a mandate.
Robert had to insert that in order for it to be upheld, no matter how much you like rewriting history, it's just a fact.
He had to make it appear as if this was a medicare type tax in order for it to be legal.
If he did not, the law violates the commerce clause.

It is not "judicial activism" to strike it down for violating the commerce clause.

He did that, called the "mandate" a "tax" thereby rewriting the law that didn't call for a tax, judicial activism.

No one else.

He was wrong in doing so.

I guess we have to argue this on every thread now, so it seems.

[Jazzhead]

He did that, called the "mandate" a "tax" thereby rewriting the law that didn't call for a tax, judicial activism.

No one else.

What do you mean "no one else"?    What about the text of the law itself? 

As I've explained, the individual "mandate" (a colloquialism, not a legal term)  was established/codified under the Internal Revenue Code, and enforced by the IRS.   To indicate compliance, an individual filed a statement as part of his Form 1040.

Please explain why this wasn't a tax.   Please explain how Roberts "rewrote" the law.   The law ALWAYS provided for the mandate's codification and enforcement under the Tax Code!     

[GrouchoTex]

What do you mean "no one else"?    What about the text of the law itself? 

As I've explained, the individual "mandate" (a colloquialism, not a legal term)  was established/codified under the Internal Revenue Code, and enforced by the IRS.   To indicate compliance, an individual filed a statement as part of his Form 1040.

Please explain why this wasn't a tax.   Please explain how Roberts "rewrote" the law.   The law ALWAYS provided for the mandate's codification and enforcement under the Tax Code!   

I'll repeat where I started:

Did the ACA violate the Commerce clause or did it not?

[libertybele]

Why?  Do you want liberal judges throwing out conservative legislation on a technicality?   Roberts is a Constitutional conservative who understands the Court's role. 
   

...hmm....I must have missed the memo trying to convince me that Roberts is a constitutional conservative. 

[txradioguy]

Why?  Do you want liberal judges throwing out conservative legislation on a technicality?   Roberts is a Constitutional conservative who understands the Court's role. 
   

Thank you for proving yet again that you wouldn't know what a Constitutional Conservative is if you tried.

[Jazzhead]

I'll repeat where I started:

Did the ACA violate the Commerce clause or did it not?

No - certainly not under Supreme Court jurisprudence going back at least to the thirties that takes an expansive view of the Commerce Clause. 

The Commerce Clause, as you well know, is notorious as the "hook" that has permitted the federal government to regulate all manner of aspects of our economic lives.  It doesn't take much to show impact on interstate commerce, and permit Federal regulation.   You would think that would create a tension between the prerogatives of the federal government under the Commerce Clause and the right of the States under the 10th amendment to tend to their own economic affairs (ESPECIALLY with respect to insurance, the regulation of which has traditionally been a state concern). 

Ironically, it is conservatives who these days advocate stripping the states of their traditional authority.  Proposals to allow consumers to buy insurance "across state lines" is a direct slap to the historic role of the states in regulating insurance within their borders.  But the Commerce Clause is the Big Daddy of Constitutional prerogatives -  just as liberals relied on it impose ObamaCare, so do conservatives want to rely on it to allow Pennsylvania residents to buy insurance issued in Virginia that doesn't meet Pennsylvania standards.     

[Jazzhead]

Thank you for proving yet again that you wouldn't know what a Constitutional Conservative is if you tried.

And you're an expert?   <NOPE> 

[Oceander]

And you're an expert?   <NOPE>   

I thought that was my distinction. 

[txradioguy]

And you're an expert?   <NOPE> 

More of an expert than you given what you think does and doesn't qualify as a "Constitutional Conservative".

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

   I just pulled it out of my azz, but it makes sense to me.

I KNEW there was a reason we got along!

 

/snicker

[Axeslinger]

...hmm....I must have missed the memo trying to convince me that Roberts is a constitutional conservative. 

@libertybele   Don’t worry...that’s only the case in @Jazzhead bass-ackwards Gumby-twisting altogether wrong and f’d up progressive worldview.   For the sane rest of the country, <NOPE>

And in a hot second he’ll be right along telling us that Roberts a staunch conservative, gun control makes conservative sense, the ACA was da bomb and abortion is a sanctified right.   And then he’ll tell us that he’s the only conservative here.

[INVAR]

Don’t worry...that’s only the case in @Jazzhead bass-ackwards Gumby-twisting altogether wrong and f’d up progressive worldview.

And in a hot second he’ll be right along telling us that Roberts a staunch conservative, gun control makes conservative sense, the ACA was da bomb and abortion is a sanctified right.   And then he’ll tell us that he’s the only conservative here.

He has ALREADY done all of that.  We've heard his tired treatises on how his views are the ONLY legit Conservative views, and the rest of us are bigoted intolerants who are too stupid to understand the Constitution and the law.

[GrouchoTex]

No - certainly not under Supreme Court jurisprudence going back at least to the thirties that takes an expansive view of the Commerce Clause. 

The Commerce Clause, as you well know, is notorious as the "hook" that has permitted the federal government to regulate all manner of aspects of our economic lives.  It doesn't take much to show impact on interstate commerce, and permit Federal regulation.   You would think that would create a tension between the prerogatives of the federal government under the Commerce Clause and the right of the States under the 10th amendment to tend to their own economic affairs (ESPECIALLY with respect to insurance, the regulation of which has traditionally been a state concern). 

Ironically, it is conservatives who these days advocate stripping the states of their traditional authority.  Proposals to allow consumers to buy insurance "across state lines" is a direct slap to the historic role of the states in regulating insurance within their borders.  But the Commerce Clause is the Big Daddy of Constitutional prerogatives -  just as liberals relied on it impose ObamaCare, so do conservatives want to rely on it to allow Pennsylvania residents to buy insurance issued in Virginia that doesn't meet Pennsylvania standards.     

States mandate that all drivers must carry auto insurance, and that auto insurance is purchased from a commercial company, not the government, and it is within that state.
This doesn't violate the commerce clause.

A state that mandates this coverage, cuold allow you to purchase it in another state if need be.
I wouldn't see that being a big blow to conservatism or the commerce clause, as long as it met the state's requirement for whatever coverage that would be in that state's law.
They also require smoke alarms, and they don't seem too particular where they come from, again, as long as they meet certain requirements.

Yet, when the federal government forces (mandates, taxes) individuals to purchase anything from private companies, this does violate the commerce clause.
I do not see how it could not.

[Applewood]

Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to come up with justification for Obamacare, and Jazzhead is twisting himself into a pretzel defending Roberts' ruling.

[GrouchoTex]

@libertybele   Don’t worry...that’s only the case in @Jazzhead bass-ackwards Gumby-twisting altogether wrong and f’d up progressive worldview.   For the sane rest of the country, <NOPE>

And in a hot second he’ll be right along telling us that Roberts a staunch conservative, gun control makes conservative sense, the ACA was da bomb and abortion is a sanctified right.   And then he’ll tell us that he’s the only conservative here.

And much smarter than the rest of us, just ask him. He called someone here an idiot earlier.

[txradioguy]

The irony is that Roberts didn’t have to rewrite the statute in order to issue a judicially minimalist opinion. He could have done what the Obama administration asked him to do: if the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, also sever the law’s guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions, and leave the rest of the law intact.

Instead, he invented out of whole cloth a new definition of taxation that contravenes long-standing precedent. He added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit, by way of his Medicaid ruling. And he forever tarnished his legacy as a Justice, and his promise to the nation that he would serve as an umpire, and “remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/

[libertybele]

@libertybele   Don’t worry...that’s only the case in @Jazzhead bass-ackwards Gumby-twisting altogether wrong and f’d up progressive worldview.   For the sane rest of the country, <NOPE>

And in a hot second he’ll be right along telling us that Roberts a staunch conservative, gun control makes conservative sense, the ACA was da bomb and abortion is a sanctified right.   And then he’ll tell us that he’s the only conservative here.

...and exactly why I have found that the 'ignore' feature comes in handy.