Skip to main content

View Diary: The two chief justices (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Didn't he legislate by pointing out that the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, tikkun

    mandate was constitutional under the taxing ability of congress?

     He could have just left it at negating the Commerce clause. Why did he feel the need to point the way to making the mandate OK under the taxing capability of Congress?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he did. I just don't understand why Roberts of all people would find a way to approve ACA.

    Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive. And... It’s the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by auapplemac on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:08:01 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The US argued it was a tax -as their second backup (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      In fact, the Solicitor General was widely criticized or making the argument, which many saw as unnecessary and potentially inconsistent with their position on the Anti-Injunction Act.  Both the Commerce and the Necessary and Proper Clauses were viewed as stronger. Needless to say, he should be feeling pretty well vindicated tonight.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site