Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bill who wrote (493395)	6/29/2012 9:27:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) of 793904

I think he just caved to Obama's political pressure. Plain and simple. Dennis Praeger put it well: "This was a vote for the court, not the case," he said. Roberts knew the law was unconstitutional (it's clear he switched sides at the 11th hour), but was afraid of the damage that Obama would do to the court by campaigning against it. I also think he believes that it's not a good thing when major political questions get decided by the court instead of by political means. So he tried to pull a Marbury v Madison: give Obama a win that he has to be happy about, officially, but stuff it with poison pills. In this case the pills are calling the mandate a tax, and warning (though it's not precedent) that the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have limits. On the minus side, Congress' taxing power now extends to inactivity. Politically, it's a win for both Obama and Romney. TWT who benefits more. Roberts now has political cover to decide the affirmative action and campaign finance cases on the merits.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next