Date: June 28th, 2012 7:01 PM
Author: .,.,,..,.,,.,.,:,,:,...,::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

1. activity/inactivity in commerce clause jurisprudence - now the law.

2. super-broad reading of necessary and proper clause - rejected.

3. the coercion doctrine - now actually means something, forbids giant coercive withdrawals of federal funds (shockingly, Breyer and Kagan sign on to this)

4. mandates aren't really okay, just tax penalties that ppl can choose to pay if they want to.

all that Roberts gave up was this case itself, which he did by construing the statute as a tax, just a statutory construction decision with no larger doctrinal meaning whatsoever. And it's not like many conservatives seriously thought you couldn't do something like this as a tax, just that it wasn't done. So the tax power didn't enlarge today.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20978832)

Date: June 28th, 2012 7:16 PM
Author: steve

lol, no on every point but 1.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20978923)

Date: June 28th, 2012 7:25 PM
Author: .,.,,..,.,,.,.,:,,:,...,::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

did they not teach how you to read opinions in shitlaw school? the Court struck down the medicaid expansion as written, and a whole new era of spending clause jurisprudence has been born. this is today's most important development

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20978999)

Date: June 28th, 2012 7:32 PM
Author: steve

No. The court misread how the medicaid expansion is going to work admittedly largely because the Obama administration is too chicken shit to tell the truth about it. The assertion that the states ITE will be funding any of it is frankly cute. Any and all expansion for medicaid will come out of the federal coffers. What will happen is the feds de facto taking over medicaid. And lmao at any state governor surviving reelection if he refuses free federal money.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20979051)

Date: June 28th, 2012 10:58 PM
Author: .,.,,..,.,,.,.,:,,:,...,::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

you're talking about facts steve, I'm talking about the law. they just invented some coercion doctrine out of nowhere, 7-2, no one saw it coming

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980425)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:01 PM
Author: wishiwerntapostr

"you're talking about facts steve, I'm talking about the law."

Succinct, accurate, and probably true of most Shitlaw Steve convos.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980452)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:10 PM
Author: slim_shady_man

the distinction between law and fact is inherently a dubious one, brother.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980552)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:11 PM
Author: .,.,,..,.,,.,.,:,,:,...,::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

lolol. can we agree that the Court held something today that can be invoked in challenges to non-Medicaid statutes, and that steve's bullshit about how this will have no practical effect on Medicaid is irrelevant to the point I'm making

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980572)

Date: June 28th, 2012 7:14 PM
Author: 

Yeah, they only thing you "lost" is any shot of halting legislation that will snowball into a single-payer in 20 years and crush your small government hopes.

LOL at moral victories.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20978912)

Date: June 28th, 2012 7:15 PM
Author: Hercules Q. Einstein (practicing lawguy)

nah, that's going to bankrupt the country inside of 20 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20978919)

Date: June 28th, 2012 7:17 PM
Author: 

We can't be bankrupt if those NOWAGs keeps extending our line of credit.

What are they going to do? Stand up to tall, alpha white males and say enough? We're going to keep stealing their lunch money to buying pepperoni pizzas as long as they show up to school.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20978934)

Date: June 28th, 2012 7:20 PM
Author: Hercules Q. Einstein (practicing lawguy)

THIS BOOM WILL LAST ONE THOUSAND YEARS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20978950)

Date: June 28th, 2012 7:23 PM
Author: 

Just do the animal spirits bro.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20978979)

Date: June 28th, 2012 7:29 PM
Author: Subtle Hipster Troll

It should have been upheld either through the commerce clause or Necessary and Proper Clause. LOL at it being upheld through the taxing power.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20979026)

Date: June 28th, 2012 10:59 PM
Author: wishiwerntapostr

THIS. I am a lib.

The opinion was Marbury v. Madison levels of genius, except instead of establishing judicial review, it sets up a dramatic takedown of government authority over the next 20 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980435)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:00 PM
Author: hank_scorpio

describe the currently existing laws that will be taken down under this new system?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980444)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:01 PM
Author: Random Access Mammaries

:D's PS3 mandate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980455)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:03 PM
Author: wishiwerntapostr

Who says they have to be currently existing. Who knows. But it'll happen if Roberts remains in the majority.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980475)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:05 PM
Author: hank_scorpio

nothing will happen, this understanding of the commerce clause is perfectly consistent with everything congress has done up to this point, they have the same power they had before, just not more

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980492)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:01 PM
Author: .,.,,..,.,,.,.,:,,:,...,::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

no no, what good is activity/inactivity except for mandates? I can't think of any other exercise of commerce power this affects. but the spending clause decision is important, could affect all kinds of education spending, transportation spending, whatever

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980449)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:03 PM
Author: wishiwerntapostr

He's taken Lopez and Morrison and given them even more support. There's even more case law on Congress' inability to do something. As I saw on AS:

As a long term legal matter, Chief Justice Roberts: (a) now has himself a previously non-existent limit on Congress's Commerce clause power, and (b) a perviously unrecognized limit on Congress's Spending Clause power. He will have these limits at his disposal over his next 20+ years as leader of the Roberts Court.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980469)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:04 PM
Author: hank_scorpio

it was only non-existent because congress never tried this shit before, all this lib whining about how precedent clearly supported them was retarded, this was obviously novel

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980481)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:06 PM
Author: .,.,,..,.,,.,.,:,,:,...,::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

I don't think the medicaid expansion was novel. After today, any gigantic appropriation that comes with strings attached could be held coercive. though that may not be the best reading of what they say, it may be that you just can't take away preexisting appropriations with strings attached to new ones. sort of a spurious line though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980513)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:07 PM
Author: hank_scorpio

I'm discussing the commerce clause issue only here, the medicaid stuff seems a much bigger deal, though I haven't looked over it at all carefully

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980526)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:08 PM
Author: .,.,,..,.,,.,.,:,,:,...,::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

oh okay. well I basically agree with you about commerce, I can't think of any other laws that regulate "inactivity" like this one does

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980540)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:08 PM
Author: ,,,...,,......,,....

too bad #1 is dicta that will likely be disregarded the moment a 5th libtard is seated on the bench

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980539)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:09 PM
Author: .,.,,..,.,,.,.,:,,:,...,::,...,:,.,.:...:.,:.::,.

some ppl claim it's a holding because it's a necessary predicate to the Court's invoking constitutional avoidance and reading it as a tax.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980542)

Date: June 28th, 2012 11:09 PM
Author: wishiwerntapostr

This is our only hope, Obi Wan.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1982011&forum_id=2#20980548)