Obamacare and the Supreme Court

[calicoug]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html/

I said "one of." Bush v Gore will be high on that list too (and I think already is).

[PaloAltoCougar]

I said "one of." Bush v Gore will be high on that list too (and I think already is).

This is a brief detour, not a threadjack, but while I understand the criticisms of the Bush/Gore opinion, it's my understanding that a subsequent (nonbinding) recount of the votes in question, done the way the Gore campaign had asked, resulted in a Bush win. Am I wrong?

[All-American]

I said "one of." Bush v Gore will be high on that list too (and I think already is).

I think you vastly overestimate the staying power of a dissenting opinion.

Here, for example, is a list of some of the more important court cases, many of which have earned more than their fair share of scorn and infamy. Tell me honestly: for how many of those cases can you tell me much about what the dissent said, or the legal reasoning behind the dissent?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html

[All-American]

This is a brief detour, not a threadjack, but while I understand the criticisms of the Bush/Gore opinion, it's my understanding that a subsequent (nonbinding) recount of the votes in question, done the way the Gore campaign had asked, resulted in a Bush win. Am I wrong?

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount"]Florida election recount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[PaloAltoCougar]

Florida election recount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, that's what I thought. The Dems who still kvetch about that decision puzzle me, as it's like a loser complaining about a bad call by an umpire that didn't affect the outcome of the game.

[calicoug]

I think you vastly overestimate the staying power of a dissenting opinion.

Here, for example, is a list of some of the more important court cases, many of which have earned more than their fair share of scorn and infamy. Tell me honestly: for how many of those cases can you tell me much about what the dissent said, or the legal reasoning behind the dissent?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html

You are conflating issues. A significant majority opinion does not suggest a significant dissenting opinion.

[Jacob]

I think the dissent will be one of the least respected legal opinions of the Court in the last 20 years.

What an odd statement.
The dissent and the Roberts opinion agree in large part. Both find the mandate an unconstitutional exercise of the commerce power. The difference is that Roberts re-writes the law in a novel manner to save it.
Both also agree that the extension of medicaid is unconstitutional, but Roberts again rewrites the law to save it.

And on the tax argument, there isn't a single justice on the court who agrees with Roberts' reasoning. Sure, the 4 liberals signed on, but I don't believe they cared for his reasoning. To them, it was constitutional, period. Commerce clause, tax power, doesn't matter. Its just plain constitutional.

Robert's opinion on the tax issue is unworthy of respect, and in the long run, I hope it is irrelevant to future cases before the court.

[All-American]

You are conflating issues. A significant majority opinion does not suggest a significant dissenting opinion.

Name for me a few examples of dissenting opinions you regard as significant.

[calicoug]

Name for me a few examples of dissenting opinions you regard as significant.

Significant? This one, Harlan in Plessy v Ferguson, Scalia in Lawrence, Holmes in Lochner, there are lots.

[calicoug]

What an odd statement.
The dissent and the Roberts opinion agree in large part. Both find the mandate an unconstitutional exercise of the commerce power. The difference is that Roberts re-writes the law in a novel manner to save it.
Both also agree that the extension of medicaid is unconstitutional, but Roberts again rewrites the law to save it.

And on the tax argument, there isn't a single justice on the court who agrees with Roberts' reasoning. Sure, the 4 liberals signed on, but I don't believe they cared for his reasoning. To them, it was constitutional, period. Commerce clause, tax power, doesn't matter. Its just plain constitutional.

Robert's opinion on the tax issue is unworthy of respect, and in the long run, I hope it is irrelevant to future cases before the court.

I don't see that at all. While they may agree the Commerce Clause doesn't apply, with the Supreme Court it's just as important understanding how they arrive at a conclusion as what the conclusion is. Not to mention, they differ wildly on the tax issue (the Scalia opinion on the tax issue would have introduced unbelievable chaos and unpredictability into the tax code and Congress' ability to use it in the future). And, of course, even if Roberts had held the tax power to not apply, the conclusion by Scalia et al that the entire law had to be stricken is amazing, if not shocking. The opinions fundamentally are on a totally different plane.

[Jacob]

Not to mention, they differ wildly on the tax issue (the Scalia opinion on the tax issue would have introduced unbelievable chaos and unpredictability into the tax code and Congress' ability to use it in the future). And, of course, even if Roberts had held the tax power to not apply, the conclusion by Scalia et al that the entire law had to be stricken is amazing, if not shocking. The opinions fundamentally are on a totally different plane.

I'm really interested to know where you come up with this stuff?

[wuapinmon]

The government isn't providing a service. It's punishing you for not buying a service from a private entity. Even Roberts admits the mandate as a tax isn't the best interpretation, merely a somewhat possible interpretation. His decision was based more on politics than the law, IMO.

Kodachrome, dude.

A Crayola 64 count box with the built-in sharpener.

A gay pride flag

Rainbows

The smiley box

A Benetton ad

The underside of a high school desk

Butterfly wings

[calicoug]

I'm really interested to know where you come up with this stuff?

a+b=c

[Moliere]

a+b=c

2 + 2 = 5

[venkman]

Kodachrome, dude.

A Crayola 64 count box with the built-in sharpener.

A gay pride flag

Rainbows

The smiley box

A Benetton ad

The underside of a high school desk

Butterfly wings

I have no idea what you're talking about.