Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

You know that the 5 judges who appointed W wrote actual words with actual reasoning as to how they came to their conclusions, right? And had you ever read those words, and been familiar with the prior works of those justices, you would know that those particular words and reasoning were entirely out of character with the rest of their career. You would also know they wrote those words without ever acknowledging that they were being inconsistent, which judges are free to be, especially on the high court.

I'm exaggerating, of course, but you get the idea.

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

I would have agreed with you before the argument, even though I agree with you in general about the weight of oral arguments.

But I'm really just reflecting what I've read other say about the argument as I've not read the transcript or listened to the tapes.

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

I don't know if that's a fuck up or not. Thinking about it in the long term, this proposal would always be put forth as the "less invasive" alternative to single payer. If the court rules it out, then what? Maybe it makes single payer more possible?

Although I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

If you were Justice Roberts and you were pretty sure that you were going to uphold the law, you might want to use the oral argument to give the other side a pretty tough time, if only to ensure that you don't get too much of a cold shoulder at the next Federalist Society clambake.

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

I think the vote assures the clam bake cold shoulder either way.

But I've seen judges rough up counsel for one side and vote the other way before, so who knows.

And I really do think Scalia and Kennedy have some thinking to do about how banning possession of marijuana was "essential" or part of an "overall regulatory scheme" such that it could be reached by the commerce clause but not having health insurance isn't.

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

Here's what Scalia said in Raich:

Obviously, the failure to have an individual mandate could undercut Congress's regulation of health care.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

This is truly bizarre. What planet are you on?

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

I have not read the case, but do you think his decision would have been different if it was not weed?

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

You mean 7 justices, right?

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

Certainly he could rule against HCR and not beinconflictwith the above. You are better than this.

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

2. It is pretty common that if you feel an appeals Judge gave your side an easy time at oral argument your side is screwed. They often hit the side they're leaning towards to get better answers to the weaker points.

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

do you think Scalia created a power without limit by that language? anything congress says is necessary to effect a legitimate goal is therefor fine? First, the mandate was not needed. Congress would normally tax to raise needed funds. The only reason it didn't here was it was too cowardly to admit the great huge costs it was going to impose.

But by your reasoning anything Congress cared to do to raise money to pay for its boondoggle is a-okay, as long as the boondoggle is fine? That's the intelligent argument you want to make? Fuck sakes Ty.

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

I was dodging cuz I had no idea what the libs were saying was in conflict. but that is the most pathetic argument I believe I've ever heard here.

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

And he wonders why you don't engage. He should just be thankful for where you've gotten him in his career.

Re: All hat, no cattle.
 

How are you counting 7 votes on one side in Bush v Gore?