Date: June 28th, 2012 12:16 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

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

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20975800)

Date: June 28th, 2012 2:13 PM
Author: Fight the Oligarh! (mostly ret.) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_lgTIZ22jE)

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.)"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20976772)

Date: June 28th, 2012 12:17 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

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

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20975809)

Date: June 28th, 2012 12:20 PM
Author: donny

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."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20975836)

Date: June 28th, 2012 12:21 PM
Author: donny

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: Mance Gaydar

I'm just a simple retired soldier,

In that case, doesn't it become a 9-0 restriction of CC?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20976862)

Date: June 28th, 2012 10:43 PM
Author: gooroo

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: slim_shady_man



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20980255)

Date: June 28th, 2012 12:20 PM
Author: Judas Jones

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: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

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: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

O WHAT A SCHOLAR!

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/06/commerce-clause-majority.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20976656)

Date: June 28th, 2012 2:00 PM
Author: dcpoast (41 yr old shirtless guitar player)

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: ...,,.,..,,..........,,,.,.,....,,....,.........,

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: TannerBoyle

"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: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

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/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20977828)

Date: June 28th, 2012 5:04 PM
Author: The Mighty Quinn

"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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20978070)

Date: June 28th, 2012 5:01 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

ANDREW KOPPELMAN FURIOUS AS FUCKKKKK

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/terrible_arguments_prevail/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20978042)

Date: June 28th, 2012 6:06 PM
Author: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

SOME JEW BISHES MARD AS FARRRKKKK

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/06/early-thoughts-on-health-care-case.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20978450)

Date: June 29th, 2012 10:27 AM
Author: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

CHEMERISKY IS ALL NNN

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/a-surprise/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20982813)

Date: June 29th, 2012 10:32 AM
Author: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

ANOTHER SCHOLAR!

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/06/a-few-thoughts-on-the-commerce-clause-analysis.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20982832)

Date: June 29th, 2012 10:52 AM
Author: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

NEAL KATYAL ANGRY AS FUCKKKK

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/in-health-care-ruling-a-pyrrhic-victory.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1981608&forum_id=2#20982900)

Date: June 29th, 2012 11:06 AM
Author: .:;..;;.;...,,..,.::.;.;....;:;,,.;;:..;...

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: .,.,...,..,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

^^^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: TannerBoyle

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: Mance Rayder

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: TannerBoyle

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: .:;..;;.;...,,..,.::.;.;....;:;,,.;;:..;...

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)