Why Clarence Thomas Uses Simple Words in His Opinions

[veritas]

First, he voted for Obama. Post something real. IF, what if,. Why do you keep making up bs. The tune I am sing is "just the facts".You should try a go at writing fiction.

I know he voted for Obama. I just said that...twice. That was sort of the point.

[BiggSeth]

He's a Tom of the major order and has not offered anything innovative or fresh to the table of national law

racist! you should be shamed into quitting everything you do, and just go crawl into a hole forever!

[soulflower]

Full disclosure - I've always been in the fence about the mandate.

But in my non-Lawyer, unprofessional opinion, Yes Roberts was wrong. Obama never called it a tax until his lawyers were sitting in front of Justice Roberts. After it was ruled a tax and therefore Constitutional Obama went back to saying it wasn't a tax. Obama pulled a huge one over on Roberts. Hey, good for Obama sand his legal team.

Edit - I'm reading to fast. I thought you asked "Was Roberts wrong?. Well, you have an answer to that question.

Remember, the Individual Mandate is a Republican idea.

According to Mitt Romney and several other republican scholars, the mandate is a tax.

Obama, for political reasons, avoided calling it a tax.

Roberts and other republican judges in lower courts disagreed with the administration and insisted on the fact that it was a tax.

[Cameron]

But the SC can and does call out the other two branches when they violate the Constitution.

Well no, courts don't call anybody out.

Somebody has to file a lawsuit.

The conservative judicial philosophy is restraint.

That was established with Marbury vs Madison.

And the notion that one unelected equal branch could overrule two equal and elected branches infuriated Jefferson.

[Fang]

Remember, the Individual Mandate is a Republican idea.

According to Mitt Romney and several other republican scholars, the mandate is a tax.

Obama, for political reasons, avoided calling it a tax.

Roberts and other republican judges in lower courts disagreed with the administration and insisted on the fact that it was a tax.

Like I said, I was on the fence. One side of me says a mandate is BS and the other side says people need to pay or never goto a hospital (which isn't realistic once an accident occurs).

But this statement, Obama, for political reasons, avoided calling it a tax., is why Obama is a liar and the lowest of the lowest. He lied to all of us. In regards to me, he lied to me about something I could have been easily swayed to agree with him on. I don't agree with much of what he does, but I got the idea of the mandate. It's just another example of polititians lying in the worst way.

IMO, Justice Roberts easily could have said you sold this as a "penalty" to the American people. If that's what you sold it as, then that's what it is regardless of what your lawyers are saying. If you want to argue a tax in court, then you to sell it as a tax in public. I think Justice Roberts failed the American people in his duty.

[dialtone]

Then who would I exploit selling them overpriced Newports and malt liquor?.

Why would you do this to anyone?

[veritas]

Well no, courts don't call anybody out.

Somebody has to file a lawsuit.

The conservative judicial philosophy is restraint.


And the notion that one unelected equal branch could overrule two equal and elected branches infuriated Jefferson.

Being elected does not make one immune from acting un-Constitutionally. I'm sure Jefferson realized that as well.

[Phineas Finn]

How many years do you need to be a judge? The left opposed Bork because they saw the SC slipping rightward. So, they had to blacken Bork's reputation. Who can forget Teddy Kennedy's hyperbolic and nonsensical tirade against him?

Bork was never more than an ideological hit-man for the extreme right. He was an effective hit-man, but if that is the criteria then Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck deserve to be nominated to the bench.

Democrats in the Senate knew what Bork was and kept him off the court because of it.

Bork's nomination was confrontational from the moment Reagan nominated him to fill Lewis Powell's seat. Powell was a moderate, and Democrats had informed the White House that they would oppose an extremist nominee.

Eventually, the seat on the Court went to Anthony Kennedy -- certainly more moderate than Bork, but still more conservative than Powell.

People on the right claim Kennedy's speech on Bork was a hyperbolic smear, but it's true that Bork supported a State's right to impose a poll tax, opposed major civil rights legislation, and generally espoused a legal philosophy that many believe twists the reality of the Constitution in the service of the right of the majority to suppress minorities.

[soulflower]

Like I said, I was on the fence. One side of me says a mandate is BS and the other side says people need to pay or never goto a hospital (which isn't realistic once an accident occurs).

Whether or not you like the Mandate doesn't matter.

The question for the court was, whether or not it was Constitutional. Roberts said it was Constitutional because it was a tax.

IMO, Justice Roberts easily could have said you sold this as a "penalty" to the American people. If that's what you sold it as, then that's what it is regardless of what your lawyers are saying. If you want to argue a tax in court, then you to sell it as a tax in public. I think Justice Roberts failed the American people in his duty.

Did you even read Roberts' argument? He basically said what you're suggesting but went on to say the law is Constitutional.

The way the law was passed is a political issue, not a Constitutional one...

[Cameron]

Also, being elected does not make one immune from acting un-Constitutionally. I'm sure Jefferson realized that as well.

A bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President has a high presumption of constitutionality, though.

As it should.

Again, I can't read his mind, but I think Roberts was looking to his legacy.

He sure was a surprise.

[Fang]

Whether or not you like the Mandate doesn't matter. ...

It matters for all of us. We the people have to live and pay for their decisions.

Did you even read Roberts' argument? He basically said what you're suggesting but went on to say the law is Constitutional.

The way the law was passed is a political issue, not a Constitutional one...

Yes I did read it with a lawyer friend of mine sitting next to me explaining some of the legal jargon. IMO he got taken and he let Obama play the system to the fullest.

But what's done is done and it's far off topic of the actual thread. I can't even remember what this thread is about.

[Marshan Man]

Roberts got "taken" on HIS interpretation of the law?? How does that work exactly???

[Cameron]

Obama was never a fan of the mandate.

During the 2008 primary, Krugman analyzed his and Hillary's health care plans.

Hers included a mandate. His did not.

Krugman agreed with Hillary that the only way to provide universal coverage is to require universal coverage.

Then Obama came around to accepting that, too.

[Fang]

Roberts got "taken" on HIS interpretation of the law?? How does that work exactly???

Uh.... nevermind. I could explain my interpretation of what happened 50 different ways and you'd never get it. It's not germane to the thread anyway.

[Marshan Man]

Obama was never a fan of the mandate.

During the 2008 primary, Krugman analyzed his and Hillary's health care plans.

Hers included a mandate. His did not.

Krugman agreed with Hillary that the only way to provide universal coverage is to require universal coverage.

Then Obama came around to accepting that, too.

Absolutely... one of their few differences...

Hillary Clinton yesterday launched one of her most pointed attacks yet against chief rival Barack Obama, charging that his healthcare plan would leave millions of uninsured Americans "virtually invisible."

Continuing her aggressive new tack against her Democratic primary opponents, Clinton said that Obama, by not mandating that individuals have health insurance, would fall woefully short of the goal of universal coverage that all the leading Democrats share....

Clinton Attacks Obama's Healthcare Proposal

[veritas]

A bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President has a high presumption of constitutionality, though.

As it should.

Again, I can't read his mind, but I think Roberts was looking to his legacy.

He sure was a surprise.

The only clue to his thinking is in reading the opinion. I'm not sure his legacy, such as it may be, would necessarily be altered by a no vote on Obamacare. Perhaps it would have prompted a reappraisal of the legislation and forced the politicians to actually understand the long term implications of what they were passing.

[Gizmo]

A bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President has a high presumption of constitutionality, though.

As it should.

Again, I can't read his mind, but I think Roberts was looking to his legacy.

He sure was a surprise.

He was looking to his legacy or he was shown some very incriminating pictures.

[veritas]

Bork was never more than an ideological hit-man for the extreme right. He was an effective hit-man, but if that is the criteria then Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck deserve to be nominated to the bench.

Democrats in the Senate knew what Bork was and kept him off the court because of it.

Bork's nomination was confrontational from the moment Reagan nominated him to fill Lewis Powell's seat. Powell was a moderate, and Democrats had informed the White House that they would oppose an extremist nominee.

Eventually, the seat on the Court went to Anthony Kennedy -- certainly more moderate than Bork, but still more conservative than Powell.

People on the right claim Kennedy's speech on Bork was a hyperbolic smear, but it's true that Bork supported a State's right to impose a poll tax, opposed major civil rights legislation, and generally espoused a legal philosophy that many believe twists the reality of the Constitution in the service of the right of the majority to suppress minorities.

That is an ideological argument and it carried the day. However, as I've posted before, if the president's nominee is judicially qualified, he should be confirmed. The Congress should not sit in judgment of a nominee's beliefs, as a rule. That holds for both sides. If Bork were found to be incompetent, that's one thing, but being rejected on political grounds is something else.

[flyboy56]

Remember, the Individual Mandate is a Republican idea.

According to Mitt Romney and several other republican scholars, the mandate is a tax.

Obama, for political reasons, avoided calling it a tax.

Roberts and other republican judges in lower courts disagreed with the administration and insisted on the fact that it was a tax.

And why would Obama want to avoid calling it a tax? Maybe because the tax hits most Americans who are not part of the 1% and will be forced to pay more in taxes? Oh, he's good.

[bmore_ken]

How did we go from how Clarence Thomas words his opinions to Obamacare?