The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Libs MAD AS FUCK about Commerce Clause
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 28th, 2012 12:16 PM Author: hairraiser gold address bbw Barry Friedman: "It was entirely unnecessary to reach the commerce clause mandate issue if it was going to uphold it as a tax" #SCOTUS #ACA http://twitter.com/NYULawElections/status/218377027223425024 |
 |
Date: June 28th, 2012 2:13 PM Author: Milky Razzle Genital Piercing http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981509&forum_id=2#20975125
hours ago: "if the vote was 5-4 to uphold, does the commerce issue have any precedential value? why isn't it dicta? (just asking, not arguing.)" |
Date: June 28th, 2012 12:17 PM Author: hairraiser gold address bbw I'm confused about whether the Commerce Clause's insufficiency is actually a binding holding. Even if it has 5 votes, it isn't necessary to the result. http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/06/quick-aca-reactions.html |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 12:20 PM Author: pale orchestra pit interesting quote someone posted from your link
"JUSTICE GINSBURG questions the necessity of rejectingthe Government’s commerce power argument, given that §5000A can be upheld under the taxing power. Post, at 37. But the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax, and I would uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it. It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question. And it is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that §5000A can be interpreted as a tax. Without deciding the Commerce Clause question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction."
|
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 12:21 PM Author: pale orchestra pit So that seems pretty strong that the commerce clause reasoning is necessary for the upholding of the law (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20975844) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 2:23 PM Author: Lavender School Cafeteria I'm just a simple retired soldier, In that case, doesn't it become a 9-0 restriction of CC? |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 10:43 PM Author: Supple Swollen French Chef can you kill this shtick? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20980268) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 10:42 PM Author: french stirring space doctorate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20980255) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 12:20 PM Author: Vigorous filthpig crackhouse The commerce clause bit was simply the courtesy of a reach-around for the assfucked reptiles. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20975831) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 1:23 PM Author: hairraiser gold address bbw http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_real_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.html (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20976394) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 1:57 PM Author: hairraiser gold address bbw O WHAT A SCHOLAR! http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/06/commerce-clause-majority.html |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 2:00 PM Author: boyish underhanded black woman therapy libs protest too much (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20976676) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 2:17 PM Author: Talking selfie market Why would it be unnecessary? CC was the main argument, it would have been stupid as shit to not address it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20976811) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 2:18 PM Author: mentally impaired quadroon "Under the stewardship of its boyish chief justice, John Roberts, the court has taken the law for a sharp turn to the ideological right, while at the same time masterfully concealing it" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20976813) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 4:36 PM Author: hairraiser gold address bbw LARRY TRIBE PISSED AS FUCK http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/chief-justice-roberts-comes-into-his-own-and-saves-the-court-while-preventing-a-constitutional-debacle/ |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 5:04 PM Author: crystalline house rigor "the decision to wait and see whether future health problems demand the purchase of insurance is, in fact, an active choice."
Existence is an active choice. Suicide or GTFO. |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 5:01 PM Author: hairraiser gold address bbw ANDREW KOPPELMAN FURIOUS AS FUCKKKKK http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/terrible_arguments_prevail/ |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 6:06 PM Author: hairraiser gold address bbw SOME JEW BISHES MARD AS FARRRKKKK http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/06/early-thoughts-on-health-care-case.html |
|
Date: June 29th, 2012 10:27 AM Author: hairraiser gold address bbw CHEMERISKY IS ALL NNN http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/a-surprise/ |
|
Date: June 29th, 2012 10:32 AM Author: hairraiser gold address bbw ANOTHER SCHOLAR! http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/06/a-few-thoughts-on-the-commerce-clause-analysis.html |
|
Date: June 29th, 2012 10:52 AM Author: hairraiser gold address bbw NEAL KATYAL ANGRY AS FUCKKKK http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/in-health-care-ruling-a-pyrrhic-victory.html |
|
Date: June 29th, 2012 11:06 AM Author: Violent coiffed theater stage The whole holding/dicta divide is a retarded academic exercise anyway (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20982954) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2012 11:07 AM Author: hairraiser gold address bbw ^^^THAT'S NOT SCHOLARSHIP (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20982958) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2012 11:08 AM Author: mentally impaired quadroon seems to be enough wiggle room for a lower court judge to say its not binding. In the grand scheme of things don't think this is a BD that these guys are making it out to be. CC jurisprudence is much like obscenity. These people do what they like. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20982961) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2012 11:24 AM Author: Walnut wonderful theater personal credit line lol @ libs who get all defensive about what the CC *actually* means, and how Wickard et al COMPEL upholding the mandate. They're basically saying "we made up a reading of the Commerce Clause that we think provides plenary authority to Congress. You'd better FUCKING not change the shit that we pulled out of our ass in the first place." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20983034) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2012 11:25 AM Author: mentally impaired quadroon MAF reptile trying to make lemonade (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20983044) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2012 11:27 AM Author: Violent coiffed theater stage If only we had 9 Thomases, the Constitution would mean something again instead of some fairy tale "living breathing" shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20983063) |