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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (480544)	4/4/2012 6:21:49 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793615

...you don't lobby the Supremes for vote unless you are arguing formally. I suspect the justices were amused......thinking all the while of their lifetime salaries, which constitutionally cannot be reduced, and their lifetime appointments. Amused, were they? Probably the right reaction. Still, I hope they were ticked off enough to strike down the law, and not just by 5 to 4. Question: if the public were really sold on Obamacare (say, 70% approval), would that have any influence on the Court, do you think?

To: carranza2 who wrote (480544)	4/4/2012 11:14:18 AM
From: Alan Smithee	7 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793615

It is an affront to the law. Every reasonably intelligent lawyer should be appalled. It was a serious but not effective breach of protocol....you don't lobby the Supremes for vote unless you are arguing formally. I suspect the justices were amused......thinking all the while of their lifetime salaries, which constitutionally cannot be reduced, and their lifetime appointments. I envision Justice Alito thinking to himself, "President Obama, I will be here deciding cases as long as I breathe and wish to continue doing this. You will be out of a job and gone in 10 months time."