HUH??!?!?

Let me actually read the article...

It was hardly an "early leak". Obama just hopped into his time machine, went forward to the point where the ruling had already been reported on, and then came back. He also swung by Hawaii to plant fake birth announcements in two independent Hawaiian newspapers and prevented Hitler from being accepted to art school.

/Seriously, I thought the current conspiracy theory was that Obama would out Roberts as a homosexual?

Corvus: HUH??!?!?

Let me actually read the article...

Ok read the article.

Wait. What?!??

So some Democrats saying it's constitutional is wrongly persuading the court however every Republican and his mother saying it is unconstitutional isn't persuading the court at all?

much like everyone else, i'd love to understand how public statements influence nominated for life justices.

He Justice Roberts -- Don't fark with Roe vs. Wade.

there we go, just in case.

Sensei Can You See: These guys are supposed to interpret the law without regard to popular opinion or consequences or anything else like that, but they're human too, I guess.

they are also supposed to be impartial in regards to ideology. when you have Scalia and Thomas speaking at Koch brothers meetings one has to wonder. then there is Thomas' wife and her very active tea party role.

which isn't to say that the other 4 don't have an axe to grind but my god the blatant partisanism of the right is amazing.

what bothers me is this: In this case, it looks as if conservative members of the court felt the need to explain publicly why the decision went against them, defend their efforts to prevent the outcome and vent a little spleen.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/02/john-roberts-conservative-outcast -and-the-supreme-courts-unprecedented-leak/#ixzz20HfdhmbG

so once again the right has demonstrated that the rule of law really doesn't matter if you have it go against you. and in this case not only the rule of law but the very traditions of the supreme court.

stay classy conservatives.

ib_thinkin: St_Francis_P: Erm...exactly how could Democrats pressure a conservative judge?

Compromising photographs involving him, Thomas, and Alito.

That's an image I'm going to need a reservoir of mind-bleach to remove, thanks.

So, let me get this straight.

Washington lawyer Stewart Baker has pointed out how strange that timing was: Since conference had been held six weeks earlier, anyone not in possession of confidential information would have assumed it far too late to persuade Roberts of anything. What did Leahy - and other Washington actors who jumped into the same debate in May - know, and when did they know it?

Since the conference had been held six weeks earlier, the Justices had already made their decisions, and were occupied with writing up their opinions, which can't be done overnight at the snap of a finger. So Leahy's remark was no more than hyperbole, unless this freak thinks Roberts could call up the other Justices the night before they made their decisions and say "Hey, wait, I changed my mind! Let's do something different."

I guess this is really just a case of "asking questions."

Sooooo...every other news outlet was privy to this "leaked info" except CNN and Fox? Uh-huh.

Nadie_AZ: Did he use his Kenyan mind control trick to get Roberts to side with him? Why Roberts? He's pretty smart. Why not use it on Thomas. He's not very bright.

He wanted to avoid this mind-control pitfall:

SCOTUS-ers? ObamaCare-ers? Roberts-ers?

/like truthers and birthers

MyRandomName: In his fuming Roberts argued that the tax was not a direct tax, using very twisted pretzels logic, but never said which constitutional tax it actually fell under... Since it is tied to an act outside if gaining income it is not an income tax... So which constitutional tax did it take in form? Expect another lawsuit on this basis in 2014. There is already another lawsuit already in the works due to the IRS declaring by fiat that federally created exchanges can provide subsidies, in direct opposition to what ACA states. So this isn't the last chipping away at the law.

It's an excise tax. Everyone has been explained this.

bhcompy: Corvus: It's an excise tax. Everyone has been explained this.

An excise tax requires a good to be taxed. This would be a reverse excise tax, of which this would be the first afaik.

No it would not. They already exist pre-ACA fail to act excise taxes. It doesn't matter it's considered an "indirect" tax and that is good enough.

MyRandomName: In his fuming Roberts argued that the tax was not a direct tax, using very twisted pretzels logic, but never said which constitutional tax it actually fell under... Since it is tied to an act outside if gaining income it is not an income tax... So which constitutional tax did it take in form? Expect another lawsuit on this basis in 2014. There is already another lawsuit already in the works due to the IRS declaring by fiat that federally created exchanges can provide subsidies, in direct opposition to what ACA states. So this isn't the last chipping away at the law.

Well if it's not a direct tax then it's a indirect tax of some sort. Since "direct taxes"are very limited and everyone is not being charged it like a direct tax then obviously it is an indirect tax.

bhcompy: Corvus: It's an excise tax. Everyone has been explained this.

An excise tax requires a good to be taxed. This would be a reverse excise tax, of which this would be the first afaik.

Would you like to bet a money on that?