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: Farmboy who wrote (493757)	7/1/2012 10:19:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	6 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793820

Not quite unheard of. It would have been unheard of if SG Verrilli didn't argue for the mandate under the taxing power, but he did. So Roberts accepted the argument. It was sleight of hand. But this is a case where Democrats were rewarded for intimidating the court, which is a bad precedent.

To: Farmboy who wrote (493757)	7/1/2012 11:11:55 PM
From: t4texas	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793820

i was going to reply, but i see nadine has already given you the answer i would have given. everyone thought the decision was going to be about the commerce clause, and the SG changed it to a tax (fooled y'all didn't i, obama thought.). 4 justices chose to reject on commerce clause grounds. 4 justices chose to accept on taxing authority grounds. roberts went with taxing for reasons only known to himself and the other justices. hey, i am angry too, but we need another 2010 uprising in the election. our job now is to make sure the senate goes republican, and obama is sent home (or to another country, as i expect) after november, 2012. i heard someone on tv say anytime the obama admin wants to talk about the economy instead of healthcare law, we know it is a bad day for their healthcare law.