How so? Scalia's decisions, generally speaking, are predictible based on his strict constructionist theory. He is also one of the most dynamic writers and probably one of the most popular on the Court among his fellow Justices and clerks. He is also extremely friendly with the general public.
His presence on the court has little impact on America as a whole and likely has a positive imapct among scholars and the Court itself.
How so? Scalia's decisions, generally speaking, are predictible based on his strict constructionist theory. He is also one of the most dynamic writers and probably one of the most popular on the Court among his fellow Justices and clerks. He is also extremely friendly with the general public.
His presence on the court has little impact on America as a whole and likely has a positive imapct among scholars and the Court itself.
The very worst Supreme Court judge in the history of this country ...
Chief Justice John Roberts...............
Why? One decision that you disagreed with, even though his legal reasoning could easily be argued as correct.
What other decisions make your statement so? Do you disagree with his acumen, reasoning, rationale, or his general writing style?
Are you in favor of the Warren theory of using the chief justice position to direct the court, the Rehnquist theory of using the position to find middle ground among the justices, or a hybrid thereof?
The very worst Supreme Court judge in the history of this country ...
Chief Justice John Roberts...............
Why? One decision that you disagreed with, even though his legal reasoning could easily be argued as correct.
What other decisions make your statement so? Do you disagree with his acumen, reasoning, rationale, or his general writing style?
Are you in favor of the Warren theory of using the chief justice position to direct the court, the Rehnquist theory of using the position to find middle ground among the justices, or a hybrid thereof?
CJ John Roberts wrote the most important opinion in one of the Supreme Court’s most important cases and his rationale for his opinion was dishonest...
Not only did he decide to rewrite Congressional legislation to make it constitutional ,,in doing so he dealt a blow against American's liberties by forcing them to purchase a private product ...and expanding the powers of government.
Judge Roberts serving on the court in the first place is something that is definitely.... "Bush's fault"....
CJ John Roberts wrote the most important opinion in one of the Supreme Court’s most important cases and his rationale for his opinion was dishonest...
Not only did he decide to rewrite Congressional legislation to make it constitutional ,,in doing so he dealt a blow against American's liberties by forcing them to purchase a private product ...and expanding the powers of government.
Judge Roberts serving on the court in the first place is something that is definitely.... "Bush's fault"....
CJ John Roberts wrote the most important opinion in one of the Supreme Court’s most important cases and his rationale for his opinion was dishonest...
Not only did he decide to rewrite Congressional legislation to make it constitutional ,,in doing so he dealt a blow against American's liberties by forcing them to purchase a private product ...and expanding the powers of government.
Judge Roberts serving on the court in the first place is something that is definitely.... "Bush's fault"....
To you, one of the most important opinions, simply because you have a legally uneducated view. Most legal observers disagree because it is not an opinion that creates precedent, much the same way that people incorrectly categorized Bush v, Gore.
If you reread the opinion, the purchase of a private product portion is accepted by the majority and the dissent, as this portion of the opinion takes a backseat to government overreach. As the majority opinion states, based on stare decisis, the history of the Court's deference to governmental acts is lengthy and plentiful.
Disagree personally but it certainly has legally 'soundity' to it...except for right wingers who can't understand how a fellow right winger could have an independent thought, or one grounded solely in legal basis.
CJ John Roberts wrote the most important opinion in one of the Supreme Court’s most important cases and his rationale for his opinion was dishonest...
Not only did he decide to rewrite Congressional legislation to make it constitutional ,,in doing so he dealt a blow against American's liberties by forcing them to purchase a private product ...and expanding the powers of government.
Judge Roberts serving on the court in the first place is something that is definitely.... "Bush's fault"....
To you, one of the most important opinions, simply because you have a legally uneducated view. Most legal observers disagree because it is not an opinion that creates precedent, much the same way that people incorrectly categorized Bush v, Gore.
If you reread the opinion, the purchase of a private product portion is accepted by the majority and the dissent, as this portion of the opinion takes a backseat to government overreach. As the majority opinion states, based on stare decisis, the history of the Court's deference to governmental acts is lengthy and plentiful.
Disagree personally but it certainly has legally 'soundity' to it...except for right wingers who can't understand how a fellow right winger could have an independent thought, or one grounded solely in legal basis.
To you, one of the most important opinions, simply because you have a legally uneducated view. Most legal observers disagree because it is not an opinion that creates precedent, much the same way that people incorrectly categorized Bush v, Gore.
If you reread the opinion, the purchase of a private product portion is accepted by the majority and the dissent, as this portion of the opinion takes a backseat to government overreach. As the majority opinion states, based on stare decisis, the history of the Court's deference to governmental acts is lengthy and plentiful.
Disagree personally but it certainly has legally 'soundity' to it...except for right wingers who can't understand how a fellow right winger could have an independent thought, or one grounded solely in legal basis.
To you, one of the most important opinions, simply because you have a legally uneducated view. Most legal observers disagree because it is not an opinion that creates precedent, much the same way that people incorrectly categorized Bush v, Gore.
If you reread the opinion, the purchase of a private product portion is accepted by the majority and the dissent, as this portion of the opinion takes a backseat to government overreach. As the majority opinion states, based on stare decisis, the history of the Court's deference to governmental acts is lengthy and plentiful.
Disagree personally but it certainly has legally 'soundity' to it...except for right wingers who can't understand how a fellow right winger could have an independent thought, or one grounded solely in legal basis.
Most legal observers disagree. How many is most ?
I know of four educated legal colleagues of his, on the court that had a dissenting opinion..
You don't have to be legally educated to know that someone should not be taxed for not buying an activity (health insurance) ..the federal power of the government should not be permitted to regulate various forms of inactivity...
Time will tell if Judge Roberts opinion compelling people to engage in commerce creates precedent for future cases or not....at the very least Roberts has created a "penaltax"...
Most legal observers disagree. How many is most ?
I know of four educated legal colleagues of his, on the court that had a dissenting opinion..
You don't have to be legally educated to know that someone should not be taxed for not buying an activity (health insurance) ..the federal power of the government should not be permitted to regulate various forms of inactivity...
Time will tell if Judge Roberts opinion compelling people to engage in commerce creates precedent for future cases or not....at the very least Roberts has created a "penaltax"...
Most legal observers disagree. How many is most ?
I know of four educated legal colleagues of his, on the court that had a dissenting opinion..
You don't have to be legally educated to know that someone should not be taxed for not buying an activity (health insurance) ..the federal power of the government should not be permitted to regulate various forms of inactivity...
Time will tell if Judge Roberts opinion compelling people to engage in commerce creates precedent for future cases or not....at the very least Roberts has created a "penaltax"...
"There is nothing less significant than being the lead dissent opinion." Judge Learned Hand
The Supreme Court has compelled people to engage in commerce ever since Wickard met Filburn and all its progeny.
Most legal observers disagree. How many is most ?
I know of four educated legal colleagues of his, on the court that had a dissenting opinion..
You don't have to be legally educated to know that someone should not be taxed for not buying an activity (health insurance) ..the federal power of the government should not be permitted to regulate various forms of inactivity...
Time will tell if Judge Roberts opinion compelling people to engage in commerce creates precedent for future cases or not....at the very least Roberts has created a "penaltax"...
"There is nothing less significant than being the lead dissent opinion." Judge Learned Hand
The Supreme Court has compelled people to engage in commerce ever since Wickard met Filburn and all its progeny.
It is precisely the Court's job to construe a statute based on any form that meets constitutuional muster. That is true based on statutory construction known as the “constitutional avoidance” canon. It comes in two versions, the “classical” version and the “modern” one. On a modern version, a judge faced with a statute that raises difficult constitutional questions can adopt a construction that does not raise such questions. On the modern version Roberts didn’t have to address the Commerce Clause question rather just note that the question was difficult and that construing the statute to impose a tax was an available reading. This is unlike the classic version that Roberts seemed to adopt. On that version, the canon of constitutional avoidance comes into play only when the statute, given its most natural reading, would in fact be unconstitutional. Only if it would be unconstitutional can the judge search for an alternate, available construction that would make the statute constitutional, in this case, a tax.
It is precisely the Court's job to construe a statute based on any form that meets constitutuional muster. That is true based on statutory construction known as the “constitutional avoidance” canon. It comes in two versions, the “classical” version and the “modern” one. On a modern version, a judge faced with a statute that raises difficult constitutional questions can adopt a construction that does not raise such questions. On the modern version Roberts didn’t have to address the Commerce Clause question rather just note that the question was difficult and that construing the statute to impose a tax was an available reading. This is unlike the classic version that Roberts seemed to adopt. On that version, the canon of constitutional avoidance comes into play only when the statute, given its most natural reading, would in fact be unconstitutional. Only if it would be unconstitutional can the judge search for an alternate, available construction that would make the statute constitutional, in this case, a tax.
There is absolute irony in you suggesting that his decision was solely based on the desire to remain in social circles in D.C.whilst encouraging your extremists circles to reject him for his decision.
You just aren't intellectual enough to understand the irony.
As an aside, the only circles Roberts is part of are very religious and very conservative. He purportedly is receiving some backlash in those because we all know that right wingers are not allowed to think for themselves.
There is absolute irony in you suggesting that his decision was solely based on the desire to remain in social circles in D.C.whilst encouraging your extremists circles to reject him for his decision.
You just aren't intellectual enough to understand the irony.
As an aside, the only circles Roberts is part of are very religious and very conservative. He purportedly is receiving some backlash in those because we all know that right wingers are not allowed to think for themselves.
"There is nothing less significant than being the lead dissent opinion." Judge Learned Hand
The Supreme Court has compelled people to engage in commerce ever since Wickard met Filburn and all its progeny.
"There is nothing less significant than being the lead dissent opinion." Judge Learned Hand
The Supreme Court has compelled people to engage in commerce ever since Wickard met Filburn and all its progeny.
That is actually a very legitimate argument.
The Supreme Court has, for better or worse, operated under the basis that acts of congress are going to be presumed to be constiutional unless shown otherwise. Thus, the legal precedent has been that the intent is not as important as the actual application. In his decision, Roberts outlined why it could be construed as a tax (regulated by the IRS, etc.).
That is actually a very legitimate argument.
The Supreme Court has, for better or worse, operated under the basis that acts of congress are going to be presumed to be constiutional unless shown otherwise. Thus, the legal precedent has been that the intent is not as important as the actual application. In his decision, Roberts outlined why it could be construed as a tax (regulated by the IRS, etc.).
How many cases has the Supreme Court found were not within the regulation of commerce? I'll give you hint. The answer is essentially one.
As an aside, that wasn't the real holding in the ObamaCare case (upheld as a tax). But the decisions of Wickard and progeny have made acts of commerce construed by doing as little as operating a vehicle. If you think decisions haven't been made that are essentially a compelling act, you need to relook at the cases. You are engaging in commerce by pretty much everything you do.
How many cases has the Supreme Court found were not within the regulation of commerce? I'll give you hint. The answer is essentially one.
As an aside, that wasn't the real holding in the ObamaCare case (upheld as a tax). But the decisions of Wickard and progeny have made acts of commerce construed by doing as little as operating a vehicle. If you think decisions haven't been made that are essentially a compelling act, you need to relook at the cases. You are engaging in commerce by pretty much everything you do.
How many cases has the Supreme Court found were not within the regulation of commerce? I'll give you hint. The answer is essentially one.
As an aside, that wasn't the real holding in the ObamaCare case (upheld as a tax). But the decisions of Wickard and progeny have made acts of commerce construed by doing as little as operating a vehicle. If you think decisions haven't been made that are essentially a compelling act, you need to relook at the cases. You are engaging in commerce by pretty much everything you do.
How many cases has the Supreme Court found were not within the regulation of commerce? I'll give you hint. The answer is essentially one.
As an aside, that wasn't the real holding in the ObamaCare case (upheld as a tax). But the decisions of Wickard and progeny have made acts of commerce construed by doing as little as operating a vehicle. If you think decisions haven't been made that are essentially a compelling act, you need to relook at the cases. You are engaging in commerce by pretty much everything you do.
The great thing about certain fields, like law, policy, and medicine, is they require you to read various viewpoints and engage in debate using independent and strategic thinking.
I can see why you are in insurance.
The great thing about certain fields, like law, policy, and medicine, is they require you to read various viewpoints and engage in debate using independent and strategic thinking.
I can see why you are in insurance.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.