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: skinowski who wrote (493161)	6/28/2012 1:01:31 PM
From: carranza2	9 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

It is ironic that Roberts saw the lack of logic in the Commerce Clause arguments in that he recognized that the Commerce Clause canot be invoked to compel commercial activity but used some very iffy reasoning to suggest that the mandate is a tax. A tax in the normal sense of the word is a revenue-raising measure designed to fund some aspect of government operations. I don't think the semantics work here. But I am still getting familiar with the decision, which is nearly 200 pages long, so this is very preliminary. If you wish to find out more about it, go to the Cheech 'n Chong place where you can read a lot of scholarly, informed analysis from a bunch of folks with absolutely no training in reading judicial decisions and who I know have not read 20 pages of it, if that many, and understand precious little of what they have read. The bit about the anti-injunction arguments is extremely complicated - I am dealing with some at the moment in a real case with some constitutional dimensions. My head hurts from dealing with them and sovereign immunity stuff. The lawyers here will know what I'm talking about, more or less. Frankly, I think that the issue should have been decided by a popular referendum, but of course that's not how we do things in the US. The referendum will take place, however, in November. If people are sufficiently upset about the decision, they will elect enough GOP pols to make sure the Act is taken off the books. I am in the camp that doesn't understand the Act [there are lots more of us who don't know squat about it than we care to admit] and therefore cannot comment on it except to say that Government compulsion of any kind is anathema to me so I look at it with a very jaundiced eye.

To: skinowski who wrote (493161)	6/28/2012 1:18:39 PM
From: Alan Smithee	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

I hoped that they would derail this entire Unaffordable Care Act. I anxiously await the next Frank Luntz focus group. Last night's panel had two physicians, both of whom were opposed to the ACA. Going to be interested to see the reaction of the next panel now that the ruling has come down.