Fuck its silent in here.......

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

So, what happens now?

Gil spends the day JOing in the sbox.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

So, what happens now?

Gil spends the day JOing in the sbox.

But he was off by like 20-25 percent.

[Gilgamesh]

• He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action

Where? In striking down the Medicaid expansion?

Read page 23 of the majority.

I'm no law-talking guy, but I'm not seeing anything that levels with my limited understanding of the Dormant Commerce Clause (that limited understanding being that the Dormant Commerce Clause is about preventing states from horning in on interstate commerce).

Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individualfrom cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.

[Yeti]

So, what happens now?

CANADA HERE WE COME!

[R-V]

So, what happens now?

Gil spends the day JOing in the sbox while congratulating himself for being one of only, like, 50 people in the WORLD who can read AND comprehend a Supreme Court opinion.

Fully douche chill'd

[Gilgamesh]

So, what happens now?

Gil spends the day JOing in the sbox while congratulating himself for being one of only, like, 50 people in the WORLD who can read AND comprehend a Supreme Court opinion.

Fully douche chill'd

I never said "...in the world..."

I'm sure there are some Mongolian yak-herders who take more than a passing interest in American constitutional jurisprudence.

[R-V]

So, what happens now?

Gil spends the day JOing in the sbox while congratulating himself for being one of only, like, 50 people in the WORLD who can read AND comprehend a Supreme Court opinion.

Fully douche chill'd

I never said "...in the world..."

I'm sure there are some Mongolian yak-herders who take more than a passing interest in American constitutional jurisprudence.

Shit, Gil's secret is out. Sounds like Yale's constitutional scholar has been reading his Desipio today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/the-political-genius-of-john-roberts/

[Gilgamesh]

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) reportedly compared the Supreme Court decision upholding President Obama's health care law to the September 11 attacks at a closed door GOP meeting on Thursday.

Wow.

EDIT: He's since apologized.  http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/pence-likens-health-care-ruling-to-127628.html#.T-yk4sxlh6w.twitter

DOUBLE EDIT:  Here's GOP Rep. Jack Kingston:

With #Obamacare ruling, I feel like I just lost two great friends: America and Justice Roberts.

[Slaky]

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) reportedly compared the Supreme Court decision upholding President Obama's health care law to the September 11 attacks at a closed door GOP meeting on Thursday.

Wow.

EDIT: He's since apologized.  http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/pence-likens-health-care-ruling-to-127628.html#.T-yk4sxlh6w.twitter

DOUBLE EDIT:  Here's GOP Rep. Jack Kingston:

With #Obamacare ruling, I feel like I just lost two great friends: America and Justice Roberts.

"Hey, sorry guys. I didn't mean to say that the Obamacare ruling was just like 9/11 really loudly and a few times defiantly while pounding my desk. I must have misspoke. I didn't mean that at all."

[Brownie]

So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Roberts opinion might as well have been written by the RNC:

• He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action
• but he doesn't overturn the individual mandate [which would have energized the Obama base], allowing it to stand under the power to tax [so now the ACA is purely a 'tax increase']

quite ingenious really

I was sort of leaning in Barry's direction when I said "Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish" in that it seems rooted in logic. The government has rather broad taxing power, and this ruling only energizes those who would like to make sweeping changes to tax law in this country.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

In other SCOTUS news, meatball hero Brian Dennehy will sleep a bit more soundly tonight (PDF).

[thehawk]

So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Roberts opinion might as well have been written by the RNC:

• He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action
• but he doesn't overturn the individual mandate [which would have energized the Obama base], allowing it to stand under the power to tax [so now the ACA is purely a 'tax increase']

quite ingenious really

I was sort of leaning in Barry's direction when I said "Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish" in that it seems rooted in logic. The government has rather broad taxing power, and this ruling only energizes those who would like to make sweeping changes to tax law in this country.

His ruling may not be outlandish, but it is quite radical.  I am trying to figure out if the Civil Rights Act would be considered constitutional by Roberts, as it was based on the fact that discrimation as to the use of public conveyances and enterprises would depress interstate commerce.  It is an obligation to serve anyone regardless of race, religion etc.  My con law is a bit rusty however.

[Gilgamesh]

So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Roberts opinion might as well have been written by the RNC:

• He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action
• but he doesn't overturn the individual mandate [which would have energized the Obama base], allowing it to stand under the power to tax [so now the ACA is purely a 'tax increase']

quite ingenious really

I was sort of leaning in Barry's direction when I said "Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish" in that it seems rooted in logic. The government has rather broad taxing power, and this ruling only energizes those who would like to make sweeping changes to tax law in this country.

His ruling may not be outlandish, but it is quite radical.  I am trying to figure out if the Civil Rights Act would be considered constitutional by Roberts, as it was based on the fact that discrimation as to the use of public conveyances and enterprises would depress interstate commerce.  It is an obligation to serve anyone regardless of race, religion etc.  My con law is a bit rusty however.

Roberts appears to view it favorably:

The proposition that Congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent. We have said that Congress can anticipate the effects on commerce of an economic activity. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 197 (1938) (regulating the labor practices of utility companies); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination by hotel operators); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination by restaurant owners). But we have never permitted Congress to anticipate that activity itself in order to regulate individuals not currently engaged in commerce.

[thehawk]

So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Roberts opinion might as well have been written by the RNC:

• He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action
• but he doesn't overturn the individual mandate [which would have energized the Obama base], allowing it to stand under the power to tax [so now the ACA is purely a 'tax increase']

quite ingenious really

I was sort of leaning in Barry's direction when I said "Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish" in that it seems rooted in logic. The government has rather broad taxing power, and this ruling only energizes those who would like to make sweeping changes to tax law in this country.

His ruling may not be outlandish, but it is quite radical.  I am trying to figure out if the Civil Rights Act would be considered constitutional by Roberts, as it was based on the fact that discrimation as to the use of public conveyances and enterprises would depress interstate commerce.  It is an obligation to serve anyone regardless of race, religion etc.  My con law is a bit rusty however.

Roberts appears to view it favorably:

The proposition that Congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent. We have said that Congress can anticipate the effects on commerce of an economic activity. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 197 (1938) (regulating the labor practices of utility companies); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination by hotel operators); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination by restaurant owners). But we have never permitted Congress to anticipate that activity itself in order to regulate individuals not currently engaged in commerce.

Nice to see, I guess (I haven't read the case yet).  Still am wondering that, if decided today, whether the Court would determine that a failure to sell a hotel room to someone is an economic activity effecting commerce or a regulation where  someone who fails to take the requested action that would lead to prophesied future activity.  I just don't see a lot of distinction in that distinction, but I don't wear a black robe for a living either.

[Slaky]

In other SCOTUS news, meatball hero Brian Dennehy will sleep a bit more soundly tonight (PDF).

ONIONS