Did you see my earlier post that the word broccoli apparently appears in the dissent 12 times? It was possibly the single most important post in this entire 12-page thread and I'm not even biased.
But... why is it mentioned?
My guess is because the question came up during oral argument whether the government could force citizens to eat broccoli since all citizens are in the market for food.
Side note - One of my BFF's just messaged me the following, with absolutely no lead up: fyi - broccoli makes its first appearance in the supreme court ruling on health care at page 27
I don't know if this is true, but one of my friends just posted
"In a dissenting opinion about "Obamacare," Clarence Thomas wrote that brownies shouldn't have walnuts in them, demonstrating his knowledge of the boundaries of his legal expertise. No matter what your politics, I think we can all agree that he's a moron."
My guess is because the question came up during oral argument whether the government could force citizens to eat broccoli since all citizens are in the market for food.
yep, that's why. According to BFF anyway. And i replied to her with the 12 mentions tidbit thanks to you IIOY.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
Post by secretlyevil on Jun 28, 2012 12:26:13 GMT -5
Today is one of the days I sort of miss TN, sort of. We'd be invaded by all kinds of crazy fun today if we were still there. I decided to give them the click and there's not a peep about this.
Post by basilosaurus on Jun 28, 2012 12:27:14 GMT -5
I'm sooooo late. H actually woke me up at 6:30, laughing, giddy, and it's taken me that long to get caught up.
Isn't Roberts' basic philosophy that his job isn't to determine whether legislation is good, reasonable, effective, but just whether it's constitutional? ACA sucks, but that's not a good reason for saying it's not legal. It sucks b/c it's the worst kind of kludge, not b/c it's taking away all this power and getting between you and your doctor (what?!).
It's like that damn CWA ad that keeps popping up that says something about getting between you and your doctor. Just b/c you say something doesn't make it actually true.
FYI, in re: the commerce clause line, this is from the most brilliant guy in my law school class (seriously, he graduated #1):
Don't think the commerce clause decision is all that terrible. It could have been much much worse. First, the CJ labels the ACA as distinct from any previous legislation in U.S. history -- making this a very narrow holding. He then goes on to reaffirm Wickard v Fillburn and say that if you're doing something (that affects commerce) the fed. gov't can tell you how to do it or not to do it at all. It's only that the fed. gov't can't force you to do something you're not already doing. The fed. gov't can regulate the farmer growing vegetables (or wheat). What it can't do is make people eat those vegetables (unless perhaps it does so by imposing a tax penalty for not eating them). That's my reading anyway.
Yes, based upon the portion of Roberts' opinion that I just read, it appears to be an activity/inactivity divide. You can regulate commerce already in action; you cannot regulate inaction into action.
Seriously guys, check out Fox News' coverage. It's kind of hilarious.
Thanks for the heads up, it's awesome. A quote was that the big takeaway is that as a presdient you never know how your appointed justices will rule. That's the takeaway?
Except... Obama's appointees ruled in "his" favor. Or are they talking about Bush? In that case, well, some of Nixon's appointees ended up being rather liberal, too. Because really, you never know how the political pendulum will swing, making Nixon look like a damn socialist.
Why do I get the impression that this ruling just cost Obama the election. Then again....Romney did the same thing in MA when he was Governor.
What a tangled web we weave...
Having it overturned would have been much more detrimental. Obama would have "wasted" 2 years of his first term on unconstitutional legislation. Which is what Romney has been arguing on the stump. Now what? Uh, Obama passed a law that was constitutional, will expand health care coverage, and is based on legislation Romney himself came up with, then argued against. Okay...
Having it overturned would have been much more detrimental. Obama would have "wasted" 2 years of his first term on unconstitutional legislation. Which is what Romney has been arguing on the stump. Now what? Uh, Obama passed a law that was constitutional, will expand health care coverage, and is based on legislation Romney himself came up with, then argued against. Okay...
*I was here*
I was worried it would be overturned and then we would be stuck with premiums that increased after the ACA was written, but without all the benefits from the ACA. Because you know that if it had been struck down, there's no way that insurance companies would have said, "Oh, you know how we told you we had to raise your rates because of the ACA? It's gone now, so we're returning your premiums to their previous levels." NO. Way. It would have been the most gigantic clusterfuck ever.