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: mistermj who wrote (493451)	6/29/2012 1:54:07 PM
From: Brian Sullivan	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

That's the most interesting article that I've read on this whole mess. Though I'll need more than a spoon full of sugar to use the word *wonderful* anywhere near this. althouse.blogspot.com

To: mistermj who wrote (493451)	6/29/2012 1:54:31 PM
From: Bridge Player	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Did Justice Roberts change his Obamacare vote at the last minute? By Liz Goodwin June 28, 2012 Did Chief Justice John Roberts decide to join the court's liberal wing and uphold the individual mandate at the very last minute? That's the theory floated by Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Boulder, and Brad DeLong, a Berkeley economics professor and former Treasury Department official under President Clinton. Campos wrote Thursday in Salon that the dissent had a triumphant tone, as if it were written as a majority opinion, and that the *four conservative justices incorrectly refer to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as a "dissent."* "No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as 'Justice Ginsburg's dissent,'"Campos wrote. DeLong pointed out on his popular blog that in Justice Clarence Thomas two-page note on the dissent, he refers to the conservatives' dissent as the "joint opinion" instead of the "joint dissent." Campos hypothesized that the conservative justices may have intentionally left these typos as a way of signaling to the outside world that Chief Justice Roberts abandoned them at the last moment. Lyle Denniston, the long-term courtwatcher who writes for SCOTUSblog, tells Yahoo News that he "can't account for the wording of the Thomas opinion." But Dennison disagrees with Campos that it's incorrect for the dissenters to refer to Ginsburg's opinion as a dissent. Ginsburg wrote that she thought the individual mandate should have been upheld under the Commerce Clause, and she was in the minority in that respect. Kennedy and the four conservative justices, including Roberts, said the mandate would be illegal under the Commerce Clause. Roberts upheld it as a tax, instead, with the four liberal justices partially concurring. "My own sense, from reading the Roberts opinion, is that it was written as a majority opinion in all of its drafts, and that various Justices joined or dropped off," Denniston told Yahoo News. "I think he was determined to try to uphold some key parts of the law, if he could find a way, partly because...he has grown concerned about the public perception that his Court is a partisan-driven Court." abcnews.go.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This appears to be pretty compelling evidence that Roberts indeed did change his vote. It would be extraordinary for such an error to occur in a SC opinion otherwise.

To: mistermj who wrote (493451)	6/29/2012 4:48:32 PM
From: KLP	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793964

And in the meantime, ALL of us who think this Bill (now LAW of the Land) is a travesty, suffer and will continue to suffer because many air heads with their grasshopper ways want free "health care"......and they themselves don't want to pay for it....Most of them that vote, don't read anything about the issues, and frankly, don't want to know. They don't and won't even discuss it with anyone who doesn't think like they do..... >>>> What's truly dysfunctional is a Court that coddles the people, purporting to save them from a Congress that is always going to try to trick them into thinking the legislation is quite nice for everybody. People need to stay alert and pay attention. Be skeptical of labels. Did somebody say nobody considers this a tax increase? And you believed it? You are not sophisticated enough to live in a democracy! Sharpen up! I'm not going toencourage your laxity.<<<<<