Millions risk losing cover as Justices take up Obamacare Challenge

Roberts totally pissed me with the Citizen United case but has pleasantly surprised me since. If he is like Kennedy, I will be ecstatic.

 

We'll see. Now if he votes to uphold the Arizona Citizens Redistricting case, then I'll give Roberts some credit.

Basically the legislature of Arizona is suing that a constitutional amendment that created a non-partisan redistricting commission is unconstitutional. If the court rules in the legislature's favor, then non-partisan redistricting is basically dead and that would be as big a deal as this case if you ask me.

Also we'll see how he rules on same-sex marriage.

 

It's not just that non-partisan redistricting is dead, it's basically telling voters that they can't determine how to choose their own representation and that they have to be subject to the will of the major political parties to allocate voting rights in a partisan matter.

It's probably even more anti-federalist/conservative/"states rights" than anything the Republicans have had the gall to challenge - the sole reason why they are challinging it is naked self-interest.

 

Roberts seems to be a conservative that leans toward business. I don't think there should be any confusion that he sides with insurance companies - established multi-billion dollar entities with vested interests - in maintaining Obamacare.

 

I hope he surprises me again in a good way.

 

Or maybe he recognized that the challenge to Obamacare was ridiculous on its merits...because it was.

This case shouldn't have even gotten to the Supreme Court. Only a partisan decision by a couple of Republicans on one panel got it up there.

 

Good for Roberts but let's not go overboard, this was a fairly cut and dry decision. Conservatives with a clue saw this coming.

 

So what you're saying is that no one in the GOP saw this coming.

 

I totally agree on all points, which is why I believe Kennedy also switched his vote from Sebelius.

 

But didn't 4 SC justices have to agree to take the case? That's what's got me wondering about the 6-3 decision.

 

Kennedy was probably the flip.

 

There was a circuit split IIRC with the one dumb decision coming from the DC Cir. when they took it, that's reason enough to take it.

 

What exactly is wrong with Justice Roberts? I kinda like the guy.

I know that there are opinions, so educate us all (Fisher, Major, Whoever, etc...)

 

Might be the worst supreme court justice in history.

 

My self ignorance impression is Robert is just a very smart politician. The GOP would have a lot to explain in the upcoming election if the vote was the other way. All his votes seem to be strategic.

 

SCJ are not suppose to be politicians. That is my biggest problem with Roberts.

 

Doesn't all law and interpretation come down to politics? If I do hanging chads, I get to pick a guy for prez who lost the majority vote. If gay people are like guys really into young girls, don't give them gay marriage. If gay people are just like anyone else, let them marry just like normal people. All comes down to how that judge thinks politically. Why you think there's so much fight about who gets on the big courts?

 

Reading the comments in the paper this morning from Dan Patrick and other Republican legislators was quite depressing, just amazingly out of touch with reality. One of them framed it as a "job-killing law", wtf?

 

The "problem" is that everyone expects their judges to be hyper-partisan and he's ... not. The fact that we can predict the votes of 7 justices on an issue based on whether it's a liberal or conservative issue is absurd - these should be questions of law and not politics.

Roberts and Kennedy are great elements of the court. I think Kagan and Sotomayor have shown some of that cross-over tendency as well, but since the court is a 5-4 conservative/liberal split, it tends to be less noticable/relevant when it happens.