In the ObamaCare ruling, they wrote specifically that their job is to preserve legislation, not strike it down. “When a court confronts an unconstitutional statute, its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy, the legislation” Maybe you can parse that to mean their role is to strike down legislation, but I don't parse it that way.
They further wrote: "Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” (John Roberts wrote the decision, FWIW)
It's fairly obvious what they mean. Their role is a scalpel, not a machete--they see their role as to preserve as much of the legislation as possible while still striking down what's unconstitutional. The plaintiffs in that case contended that the mandate was unconstitutional because the federal government didn't have the power to compel anyone to buy a product, but the Roberts court held that the mandate was constitutional under Congress' taxation powers. Are you seriously trying to contend that the Supreme Court does not see its role being to prevent unconstitutional legislation? i.e. They have no role at all? That's silly, even for you.
They would have struck down ObamaCare if that was their sole or even primary criteria. In fact, the decision goes on for several paragraphs about how the mandate is unconstitutional. Yet the law still stands. The remedy is to vote out the bums and vote in different bums who will enact laws you want. Maybe if we didn't have elections, there wouldn't be such a remedy.
That was their primary criteria and they didn't strike it down because they found that the mandate was constitutional under the federal government's taxation powers. Roberts choosing to consider the mandate a tax (which is what it is, at its core) left conservatives hoping for a ruling against Obamacare sputtering with rage.
We will survive. I am really sorry Americans do not hold the politicians to their oath of office. To uphold and defend the Constitution, then lying and slight of hand work would not pay. With an amendment to the Constitution to make "Healthcare" the business of the Federal government, then there would be a mandate to create the system. I don't mean some bollixed up insurance scheme, I mean Healthcare, not some box of lies, pander promise, and graft.
Roberts chose to allow the bill to stand because elections have consequences. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Supreme Court's job is to evaluate laws for constitutionality and the Roberts decision clearly spelled out that the law was constitutional and why. "Elections have consequences" was aimed at the plaintiffs. Don't like the law, get it changed through Congress--not through the Supreme Court. The Court only strikes something down if it runs afoul of the Constitution, not because some people don't like it.
It clearly spelled out why the bill was unconstitutional. But he voted to allow the bill to pass muster anyway. He was on the side of unconstitutional all along, but at the last moment decided that the Court shouldn't decide. The Court also didn't rule on many other constitutionality issues regarding the (awful) law, and often they choose to not rule on the constitutional questions brought before them. Elections have consequences was aimed at everyone. Don't expect the SCOTUS to overrule laws - that's congress' job to make them.
Yeah, sure. At the last moment, the chief justice decided that the Supreme Court shouldn't fulfill its main role--to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Anyway, everyone knows that the decision ruled the mandate constitutional because it was a tax and the federal government has the power to tax. I just wondered how much you planned to embarrass yourself. Getting to the point where you're arguing that the chief justice of the Supreme Court doesn't care about constitutionality in cases he judges is probably as far as its possible to push you into silliness.
What? He doesn't care! Actually he was quite benevolent, the Legislation as passed, said "penalty", not Tax. They changed it to make it legal in the view of the court. But is that legal? It would not have passed another vote in Congress with the word Tax. It is an interesting concept, taxing a citizen for what he does not do but yet it is not a direct tax that only the citizen pays for not directly doing something. Does anyone here thing with a straight face, no curl of the lip, that this is following the spirit of the Constitution? Original Intent?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...anged-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/#1b43147ed701 The Inside Story on How Roberts Changed His Supreme Court Vote on Obamacare After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued - severability and the Medicaid extension - but the mandate was the ballgame... On this point - Congress' commerce power - Roberts agreed. In the Court's private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate.
To be clear, what I was ridiculing about your position, Denny, was that Roberts didn't care about constitutionality (considering that's the primary concern of the Supreme Court). Not that he changed his mind in the end.
He didn't put the constitutionality question first. If he did, there would have been no ObamaCare (mandate falls, the rest of the law is toast). You were caught making a claim that simply isn't true. You've seen the facts. Feel free to try to weasel out of your position.
Can anyone name a tax you pay, anyone pays, for not doing something? A tax you owe for doing no more than breathing?
It's not really a tax but debit card fees are fees for customers to pay for your cost of doing your business....if you don't have the cash...less than 6 dollar purchase carries a 35 cent fee for nothing but breathing....my view...build the fee into your retail price to begin with and I won't have to hear a cashier explain to me why it costs me money to spend money at their establishment
He ruled that the mandate was constitutional because it was a tax (even your fellow conservative Republican MarAzul admits that that was Roberts' ruling). I'm not sure how that equates to "he didn't judge the constitutionality." Supreme Court justices always place constitutionality first, if there's a constitutional challenge.
He ruled what he had to, to allow the Court to not interfere with congress making law. "Elections have consequences," not "we heartily support this law as constitutional, bring on more!"
