Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (186110)	3/28/2012 10:42:41 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542946

Nice piece from Josh Marshall. ---------------------------------------------------- The Shame of It All Josh Marshall March 28, 2012, 10:07 AM It’s easy to imagine that two generations of aggressive judicial advocacy and court-packing was leading up to this moment yesterday before the Supreme Court. This would be the prize. For all of those who thought the conservative judicial push was principally about stuff like Roe v. Wade, as some have suggested to me over the last day or so, just go to a Federalist Society meeting. The real issue has always been the regulatory state. In any case, it is the height of judicial activism for the Court to consider striking down legislation on grounds that was barely considered — certainly not in the mainstream of jurisprudence — only two years before when the legislation was being considered. But what struck me more was how the the critical questions from the conservative bloc on the Court grappled so little with the actual economic role of health care provision in the society and systemic market failure. These would seem to be precisely the issues the Commerce Clause is meant to address. Simply because the problem is serious doesn’t mean every possible solution is constitutional. But again, no real grappling with the practical issues the law was meant to address but rather a hyper-focus on academic and ideological points. ‘Broccoli’ was the key moment.

To: JohnM who wrote (186110)	3/28/2012 10:45:54 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542946

I'm gonna guess 6-3, with Kennedy (" Maybe the health insurance market is unique") and Roberts, who doesn't want 5-4, and can write the opinion by joining the majority.

To: JohnM who wrote (186110)	3/28/2012 12:28:08 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542946

The SC Justices basically know all the arguments for and against the issue. They just throw the lawyers tough curve balls to see if they can hit them out of the park and on the oft chance they might actually come up with something new. If a lawyer can't hit the curve ball they just get their A-1 clerks researching the issue if they want to go that way. In other words whiffing the curve ball is not fatal to the issue--as embarrassing as it might seem to the public..