E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn his first public comment since the U.S. Supreme Court’s health care decision, Justice Antonin Scalia denied reports that he and Chief Justice John Roberts feuded over the June 28 ruling.
Scalia was speaking with CNN’s Piers Morgan about his new book about judicial interpretation when Morgan asked him about the rumor that he and other conservatives were furious at Roberts and had accused him of switching his vote.
The Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law, specifically the provision that requires individuals to have health insurance or pay a penalty.
How Verrilli may have won over Roberts
In a brief clip aired on CNN Wednesday, Morgan said, “The big buzz at the moment is that you and Justice Roberts have had a bit of a parting of the ways, you've gone from being best buddies to warring enemies.”
Scalia replied, “Who told you that?”
Morgan told the justice he had read about their disagreement in newspapers.
Analysis: Why Roberts saved Obama's health care law
Scalia, laughing, said, “You should not believe what you read about the court in the newspapers. Because the information has either been made up or given to the newspapers by somebody who is violating a confidence, which means that person is not reliable.”
“So you've had no falling out with Justice Roberts?” Morgan asked.
Scalia said they hadn’t.
“Loud words exchanged? Slamming of doors?” Morgan persisted.
“No, no,” Scalia said. “Nothing like that.”
More content from NBCNews.com:
Leave a Comment:
Can you impeach a Chief Justice? If not, a new rule and test case needs to start........
Justice Scalia: No feud with Justice Roberts over health care decision - Well the MAJORITY of Americans seem to have a feud with this marally bankrupt judge. He was more worried about "his image" then the US Constitution. He is a fraud on the American people and to the Supreme Court. He is now the reason that the SCOTUS is now just as corrupt and inept as the White House.
Too bad ladies, guess you 2 are just gonna have to suck it up. I've had to live with dozens of reactionary decisions from this far Right court. Surely you can deal with just one which did not go your way. What the hell more do you want? These are the very same bastards who've turned the clock back a century in both civil as well as regulatory cases.
Citizens United was a real beaut, now wasn't it? Your conservative court determined that the only thing lacking from our magnificent political system was a dearth of cash. So how about we open the floodgates so a handful of uber rich individuals can purchase entire candidacy's. Bravo John Roberts, well done.
Vernon, so the decision didn't go the way you wanted it, so now it is against the Constitution huh? Funny how that works. If it had gone the way you wanted it, then it would have been a glorious decision. Hypocrite much? And where do you get the Majority of Americans think that? You had best check the polls again. I love it when you people disagree with something, then the Majority of Americans disagree also. You are a joke.
I agree with you totally Verno, they are a joke. Funny how the cons can't stand activist judges until the\y need one, ie. the Terry Schivo case. then they can't find one and on come the tears. They act like pouting little kids when the decisions don't go their way.
VCan't wait to hear the moans and groans when Mutt loses the election.
Like you can really believe anything a winger says....
Well the MAJORITY of Americans seem to have a feud with this marally bankrupt judge.
What majority? Last I looked more than 50% favor the decision and those who oppose it include those that want a stronger bill like single payer etc. You guys lost the bill is law so go suck on it and visit fox if you want a slanted view.
Traitor.
imwhitewolf I can't wait until Mutt loses the election too. If Obama does win the second term he won't last long. When Obama signs the U.N. Small Arms Treaty on July 27th and the U.N. comes for our guns, there will be a civil war. YOU will be on the wrong side if you support Obama and the U.N.
What a stupid comment. You want to impeach him because you don't like his ruling? If the criteria is that a ruling is unpopular then every Chief Justice we've ever had would have been impeached. Besides impeachment only applies to high crimes and misdemeanors. What has he done that is illegal? You Repugs, Cons, and Tea Baggers are the sorest losers I've ever seen. I can't wait until November so I can't watch you lose again and laugh at the temper tantrum you throw. You people are hilarious and pathetic at the same time. My only complaint with the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a Obamacare) is that it didn't go far enough. We need a single payer system like they have in Canada and Britain. HEALTHCARE SHOULD NOT BE A FOR PROFIT INDUSTRY!!!! IT SHOULD BE A BASIC RIGHT!!!!
flexmind (or is it lostyourmind?), let me guess, you are sitting in your parents' basement with your tin foil hat on so that President Obama can't read your thoughts, right? U.N. coming for our guns? Civil War? I'm laughing so hard that I can hardly type. I always knew you rightwing nutjobs were certifiably insane. Thanks for proving my point!
FLEXMIND, You need to change that to fixmind because yours is either fixed wrongly or needs fixing but there sure isn't any flex. Where did you come up with the stupid, irrational notion that the U.N. could come for anything, even or especially your little bang-bangs that you paranoid children think are so SO important.
Vince...I agree 100% I think sooner or later we will get single payer and get those money grubbing insurance companies out of our pocket. It might be later since they are probably paying pretty good money to our United States Congress to keep it this way. Noticed haven't seen any rebate checks yet from insurance companies.
but would you tell the above posters it's MORALLY not Marally...just sad.
There is no UN Small Arms Treaty.
They're having a meeting at the UN to discuss one, which would regulate international arms sale. Also a treaty requires slightly more than a Presidential signature (that part usually comes last, after they write it and 67 Senators ratify it). Also no treaty can supersede the Constitution - how the hell can you claim to defend our rights when you don't even know our rights? It has nothing to do with gun ownership within the USA or any UN nation.
Arms treaties are the sort of thing we created the UN for in the first place.
Yes you can. The John Birchers and the KKK tried for 20 years to impeach Earl Warren.
IMO, the issue is not whether or not the judges feuded, but rather that Roberts was 100% correct and accurate that obamacare imposes a NEW TAX on the middle class, those who make under $250K/year. Obama lied, lied, lied irrefutably.
Capt Tripps: you're partly right, it'll never pass the Senate
- but it is in the works, and if it did somehow pass, it would make it illegal under international law to sell small arms to civilians in the US. They may, or may not, be able to enforce it Constitutionally in US courts... but, if you ever left the country, you still could be tried, convicted, and sentenced in international courts, for a noncrime committed on US soil, and the US would have to abide the decision under treaty.
Flex....you over flexed you mind...Obama coming for your guns????????? Monsters under you bed too flex.....watch out!...spiders under you blankets.........commies hiding in your closet...gonna getcha...gonna getcha......booga booga.......civil war played out in the 1860's....your side lost!........gonna getcha.......
Here let me check for monsters under your bed for you.
Ok are there any monsters hiding under flex's bed?........."Nope not us!".......
Got bad news for ya Flex.........they're gonna getcha!
Obama/Biden 2012
You are so blatantly wrong that you have induced a migraine headache.
From snopes...
Small Arms Treaty
Claim: A U.N. small arms treaty signed by the U.S. provides a "legal way around the 2nd Amendment."
FALSE
Example: [Collected via e-mail, April 2010]
While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.
OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE COULD BE WAR
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.
The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and
methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.
Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.
Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present!
THIS IS NOT A JOKE OR A FALSE WARNING.
As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.
Read the article:
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed. This is a very serious matter! Silence will lead us to Socialism!!!
Origins: Although the United Nations has been studying the feasibility of effecting an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the above-referenced piece of scarelore about the United States' having already entered into a such a treaty — one which supposedly provides a "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" and will result in a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" — is erroneous in all its particulars.
There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.
Last updated: 9 July 2012
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2012 by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.
Sharing Successful!
Share again!
You've successfully shared using Po.st!
Welcome to po.st!
Powered by Po.stPrivacy policy
Read more at #S9iDmKs4gfFaZU6O.99
If seven2seven and brethren actually took the time to READ the Constitution they would KNOW the answer.
As would the ideological largemouth twits whose paranoia outweighs their intellect. They don't know the Constitution, nor how it applies to international treaties, nor very much of anything else that does not make it into their little echo chamber, nor do they have the intellectual curiosity to investigate the truth for themselves.
I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment and I hold a CHL. And I'm not afraid of the big bad buIIsh1t story that obviously has some of you girls (no insult intended to the real ladies here) wetting your panties.
So "flexmind", you can start your civil war on your mistaken paranoid idiocy, but you BETTER make that first shot COUNT. Because you won't get a SECOND one. I love America too much to let idiots such as you make the same mistake of 1861!
Andrew - that's not at all true. For one thing we make the majority of our guns in country anyway, and two, there's no international sanction against selling guns to the USA. The point of the treaty is guns going to warzones and unstable nations, like Mexico, Palestine, Somalia, etc
It's a good idea if they manage to work it out, and it'd be a shame to see this ridiculous rhetoric scuttle support for it in America. Harkens back to death panels, to suggest this treaty interferes at all with the 2nd Amendment. I don't even understand why anyone would want to make such an argument. Then again I didn't understand the raging opposition to expanding public healthcare.
Glad to see the RIght WIng is embroiled in useless hysteria -(impeach the CHief Justice ) hah! That is even dumber than the idea of repealing ACA. but, I'm glad to see you're wasting your tiome fretting about it. It just greases the skids for the REpublican slide into oblivion. Just think - ROmney's big campaign pledge - "Vote for me and I'lll take away your Health Care!" - an irresistible appeal if ever there was one.
I found it 'revealing' that Obama told the public that the 'penalty' is not a tax, but in his presentation to the Supreme Court, his solicitor insisted that Obamacare was LEGAL because it WAS a tax. When the Supreme Court then decided that Obamacare was legal because it was a TAX, Obama was elated, but now he's back to insisting that it is NOT A TAX again.
To Obama, there is no such thing as the TRUTH - everything is a matter of how you 'spin' it with rhetoric.
By the way - guess who pays the 'penalty/tax'; It's not the 'rich' because they have insurance, so they are exempt. It's not the 'poor' because they get free Medicaid - courtesy of the taxpayers.
That means that the 'tax' is on the only group left - the Middle Class - typically those least able to afford it - the 'working poor' who make too much for full Medicaid, but not enough to afford health insurance. So much for Obama's promise of 'not one dime' of tax increases on the Middle Class.
The court rules this stands because it is a tax and that is the only reason it can find for it to be legal. Obama and the administration say it is not a tax so they must have argued in front of the court that it was not a tax. How could the court have ruled otherwise? Those who stand by the courts decision are seeing what they want to get what they want, not the other way around.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/11/holmes-un-arms-trade-treaty-will-harm-us-let-other/
ontrol was a human rightYou may notice that's an opinion piece, not a fact piece. That's seems overly concerned with hypothetical interpretations.
Based on a rough draft. From someone emplyed by the Heritage Foundation. Oy vey.
Also I've never heard anyone claim gun control was a human right, what is that absurdity? And he clearly doesn't understand that the Constitution trumps all laws and treaties, regardless of how they are brought into play. It's not a difficult concept.
Also if we can ignore the Geneva Conventions when it's convenient, we can certainly ignore this.
"Scalia, laughing, said, “You should not believe what you read about the court in the newspapers. Because the information has either been made up or given to the newspapers by somebody who is violating a confidence, which means that person is not reliable.”
Folks, Scalia's words to live by when reading anything printed by the media. All these leaks by 'a source who wishes to remain anonymous or speaking off the record'....
Wow - the most brilliant of statements from a Supreme Court Justice I've heard in a long time. Also the first time in a lonnnnng time I've agree with Scalia.
Yeah, because a justice that has obvious conflicts of interest, yet refuses to recuse himself is someone that is NOT violating a confidence and is therefore reliable, right Tony?
Should not have even been that close as Scalia and his sidekick who attended the Koch bros shindig should have recused themselves from even voting as they got their orders from there.
Scalia is not going to throw a hissy at Justice Roberts because Scalia is a minnie me of Gov Christie. And he knows full well that Roberts might smack him. But he did come into the hall in front of those reporters when the announcement was made and refuse to sit down and was leaning on his knuckles and glaring at the throng of reporters as if someone had stolen his 10 canoles he was planning to eat for his after breakfast snack. The reporter that reported this said he just leaned on his knuckles and snorted like a mountain silverback for about five minutes. I did not read this I saw the reporter saying it the next morning on Morning Joe.
Notice when Scalia was asked the question, instead of saying no...He asked"who told you that?" In other words........YES!.......Ladies and gentleman of the court in closing I would like to add...Habeus Corpus Christi, and Sierra Nevada versus Obligatto Maximus. Where upon the first party of the second party was taking a bath, how was he to know there was a party going on? With all the moving and the grooving and the rocking and the rolling, the Corpus Delecti was incompacitated and therefore incognito of the fact that Sempar fi has juris prudence over the Dominos ver batum..........I duely annouce Scalia pleads insainity and throw him at the mercy of the court.
Slip Mahoney att. at Law
I love that "violating a confidence" makes the info unreliable. Somebody repeated what I said so they must be lying.
Jeez. Even a rightwingnut Supreme Court Justice blames the media when the media writes something he doesn't like. Typical.
Puh-lease - remember anything about the election that Bush stole through the SUpremem COUrt?
Scalia and Thomas are perfect examples of why we need to start limiting the terms of Supreme Court Justices.
I've had to deal with these two idiots for nearly my entire life.
Scalia, as some may recall, didn't want to be burdened with reading through the whole Affordable Care Act - this from a Supreme Court Justice.
He's also the guy that went hunting with V.P. Cheney, while Cheney was involved with a case that was going to be before the court shortly thereafter. Are you kidding me? You can try and sell that he's not bias to someone from the star-planet, Kolob.
I think the Constitution and the formation of our government is pretty solid and should not be tampered with in the matter of term limits for the Supreme Court. Time after time justices have made decisions that were completely unexpected and surprising, The reason they were able to do that was because they were free from the political retribution factor, and as such they were capable of taking a longer and much more pure vision of the real issues.
We tend to think that what they do is the same as a member of congress or the legislative branch, but in reality they exist as the classic check and balance, the backbone of our government and ultimately the reason we are free.
As much as I might disagree with any decision that they may make, it is always interesting to read the decisions, and especially the dissenting ones. It offers a great deal of insight into the actual real process, and does not rely upon the spin doctors interpretation.
Even though the whole process of selection and affirmation has been so politicized, it still is doing a phenomenal job for us as a whole.
Apparently Nancy Puglosi didn't bother to read it either...
What are you talking about? She is not in charge you are late to the lets slay Pelosi ritual.
Giant,
Scalia appears to like the 1%'s alot, his kind of people. Hunting trips, golf outings, spa's, dinners, banquets.
Yeah Scalia didn't want to read through the whole document, because it was cruel and unusual punishment, however Pelosi told congress to pass the bill before reading it, then maybe someone would read it. I am not in favor of Obamacare, but the Supreme Court has ruled...so it is the law. Getting mad at the Supreme Court does nothing. Get over it and move on....perhaps after the election we can fine tune this law and make it work. A single payer system will never work. My company did get an insurance rebate check. I know that the government can't run a program as effeciently as the private sector can...so let's wait and see. At the time that this bill went through congress, both parties agreed to 80% of what was in this bill.
HRDawg,
Were you referring to you chronological age or your mental age? Because if you've "had to deal with these two idiots for nearly my entire life.", AND Roberts has only been on the SCOTUS since 2005, . . .
Should read: I know that the profit sector can screw me over much more efficiently than the government can.
Piers Morgan.....is the only Problem, not the Justices. He wants to get the big ratings, so he tries to always, rib and dig, at people, hoping to trigger something shocking or new. I wish they would have a show, about all the failures of the Obama tenure. He promised to cut the debt in half in two years, in 2008, then tripled the Debt instead. He promised to have a open white house, and hids everything he does in secret. He promised to reform Immagration.....did not do it. I could go on and on, the guys lies through his teeth. Has, a great smile....but other than that, is a Jerk.
I wish we could have a show about the EXTREME FAILURE of the Bush administration too. Don't count on either anytime soon ! When Bush took over we had a surplus of money. When he left, we were almost bankrupt. Don`t get into this he did she did crap. The facts are facts. We will now spend the next 25 years trying to undo what Bush did before he left.
No Roger, we did not have a surplus, only a projected surplus, and you know how reliable these forecasts are. And you very well know this was a group effort and that the left is just as guilty as the right. Facts is facts.
So if we are to believe what you just wrote the surplus could have been twice what was projected ....Any way wonder boy destroyed all of that and sunk the economy's of the entire world. Thats what you get when you elect a c student who was appointed by the Supremes....Plus I do not buy that line you people use when you are losing that they all do it. speak for your own worthless party..
What were the projections after Bush left office in comparison ? I can and do agree that both sides of the aisle should shoulder the blame, but that does not make what George Bush did look any better now does it ? After all he did have veto power. Again, we will spend 25 years digging out of the hole Bush left us no matter who is in control of the oval office, congress and senate.
Really? Just projected? Then what was all that noise during Dubya's first campaign about "it being the people's money and they deserve to have it back?" How do you explain all those $300 and $600 checks GW managed to mail out to millions of tax payers? Where did the money come from to cover those checks? It stands to reason that refunds are not made on projectons for the money has yet to be collected. Got to admit, Wally, that a good story until you have to defend it.
Projected surplus, which is tied to people having jobs and when did people start too lose their jobs, Yep on BUSH's watch, all while the RICH was making record profits. Why his tax cuts, what happens when you cut taxes the revenues go down, and yes that was part of that projected surplus.
Scalia is full of it... He hates it that his rigid, Nazi Germany like Right wing agenda did not get carried forward when it came to the ACA. Scalia has been a jerk since they put him on the Court and he and hi slap dog, Thomas need to retire and go be angry, old men filled with gas
Read ALL of Scalia's opinions, whether they be majority, concurrence or dissent. Justice Scalia is the farthest thing from a Nazi on the Court. As a rule, his opinions reflect a preference for Constitutional construction that places the individual rather than the collective as the prime good to be preserved. You are certainly free to disagree with him, as I often do. However, accuracy often gets in the way of a partisan screed. Try some. You might like it.
I have read many of his opinions and they are all BS. Its his interpretation of the documents not what is written. BTW the Judge you all hate Earl Warren was a conservative Republican.....
Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas should not have been included as he does what his wife tells him to do when he accompanies her to I hate Obama care meetings. Therefore.......he should have reclined himself to the offer of Improper Petunias et al Romney Carus Interuptus. The stencherino was quite apparatus at the first smell of his opportunis at the prosperitas of obtainin a little do re mi at the conglomoration of his wifes attendance to Bring down Obama care meetings. The proof of the transactional money drop was the severe white stripes up and down his body as seen on the Pepe le Pew carcus. Thus the stencheroo proves beyond the shadow of a dope that the witless was definately tainted like a slab of Lutefisk prepared by my Grandpa Sven at Xmas.
Once more I plead insanity for my client , Clarence Thomas and throw him at the mercy of the court.
Dewey, Cheatum, Andhow
Att at law
P,S. We also do weddings and funerals with our polka band.
Scalia also said: "I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better," said Scalia, when asked about so-called super PAC spending on national elections. "That's what the First Amendment is all about. So long as the people know where the speech is coming from."
So long as the people know where the speech is coming from? They why are people like Karl Rove so busy trying to keep the names of big money donors private?
Probably because the big money donors are religious affiliations, as they have the most to loose.
Just like Obama is doing? You know how open and transparent he is...
Yesterday the bill that would have named the donors came up in the senate and was defeated by the Republicans with a fillerbuster! This was the 97Th time a bill was fillerbustered to death since theis seante was in session. And they blame Obama for not doing enough....ppullleeezee
If corporations can speak, what does their voice sound like? Seriously, only an activist judge would stretch the 1st amendment to include corporations giving money to politicians. Corporations typically donate money to both parties. Speech requires communication of ideas. What ideas are expressed by donating money to both sides?
The message may be that the side with the most money has the greater chance of buying an election. I would love to see us abolish the Electoral College and then set a maximum campaign expenditure of $1-million per state. Then come election day, let the popular vote of the people elect the president. Strange how a public plurality is acceptable in all other elections but we are still mired in this archaic method designed to accommodate the limitations concurrent with the 1700s.
Corporations are people too....yep...and a lady just married a corporation in the state of Washington. Repubs and religious wingnuts just destroyed marriage becase now women and men do not have to marry each other, they are allowed to marry corporations. Since corporations are people, and gays are people, people marry any which combination suits them. Repubs just destroyed the sanctity of one man and one woman marriage. Once again I must plead insanity for the repubs for they know not what they do, but the rich 1% knows what they paid them to do.
Slip Mahoney
Att. at law
Scalia's comments are the most honest thing I've heard from that bloviating blowhard in a while. There is hope yet for this Supreme Court!
The Supremes could do a better job...."Baby Love, my Baby love.......
Anonin Scalia should absolutely be impeached. He's guilty of so many ethical lapses and he doesn't even bother to hide that fact that he's in the back pocket of Big Money and Big Business. He doesn't recuse himself when the Constitution and common sense demand it. Remember Dick Cheney pulling "executive privilege" to prevent the American people from learning which emissaries from the Energy Industry wrote every line of his energy bill? Scalia went duck hunting with Cheney right before the case was to be heard. When asked if he'd recuse himself, Scalia's two-word reply was "Quack quack".
You need to go to college and learn how and why propaganda works... both sides use it the republicans are just better at it, they have been doing it longer. And of course they have already determined those who are susceptible.. more red meat (states).. this from an independent.. but never ever a tea-bagger
More they all do it....
Republicans are not better at it even though that is 99% of what they do. Yesterday their clown running for the presidency twisted Obama's word to make it sound like he did not favor small businesses. On msnbc they played both Obamas words and surprise a video of Romney saying almost the exact same thing. It related to small business creating jobs. Both said and I agree we all help create jobs. We pay taxes and build the roads and hir the police and fire people. We pay the politicians to make rules so they caan do business in effect it is us not me when it come to creating jobs and it is wrong to just say they created tem.
This was actually given birth by the Goebbles of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh. All of the other commenters were mere echo chambers. If Limbaugh were to proclaim tomorrow that George Washington was actually a Black fugitive slave from a southern plantation, there would be a significant number of lemmings that would advance the claim and defend its veracity. But the GOP needs Limbaugh for obviously the current party leadership cannot tie their shoes without help. And if Limbaugh says it, you can be certain all the other rightwing talking heads will parrot his comments incessantly ~ until Limbaugh changes the subject.
Jim... "If Limbaugh were to proclaim tomorrow that George Washington was actually a Black fugitive"
Rushdruggie already has for years and years. There is nothing for him to say offensive anymore that he hasn't already has said.
Rush is the leader of the party along with Rove and Norquist. Have you ever seen a bigger bunch of losers in your life.? Sissy boys telling everyone in their party what to do because no one is man enough to do what is right for the country. The three amigo nerds losers, and repub men choose them as their role models.........
It is hard to respect a Supreme Court that practices partisan politics. One has to wonder, if the case on corporate donations had been brought against the unions, would the court have made a different finding? I think they would have, which is why I no longer trust the court to act with integrity or honor. Partisan politics has no place on the court. Truthfully, I have no idea why Roberts voted the way he did, I'm just grateful that the ACA was preserved and has some chance of reining in our runaway medical costs.
If you think healthcare is going to get any cheaper, you're living in lala land.
And just how would you know that unless there is a plan to raise costs just to defeat the effort. We have been averaging 18% increases for years. It cannot get any worse than that.
I'm afraid partisan politics have always been part of the Supreme Court. Like most people most justices make up their mind first and then try to find some legal basis to back it up. There's really no sense of consistency to principle. If a state passes a conservative law, the conservative justices would cry "states rights" and the liberals will oppose it. If California passes a law to allow medical marijuana, the liberal judges would cry "states rights" and the conservative justices will oppose it. It's not really about what the constitution says in many cases.
Most of Europe has health care that costs less per capita than we pay. They also have way more smokers and drinkers too.
When done properly - universal health care can definitely contain costs.
Simple fact: The Supreme Court is not there to strike down laws YOU DON'T LIKE! There's a legislative mechanism in place to repeal laws and impeach treasonous pieces of garbage like Obama.
Name one act of treason by President Obama. On the other hand, name one lawful act of George W. Bush, the most traitorous, lawless fool to ever occupy the Oval Office. The things that make Bush's reign of terror even more galling is that he was never lawfully elected to the office and he'll never be punished for his crimes.
True-I agree, however The court should rule if Congress has the power to do that-Roberts just said there is no limit to what Congress can tax-Before if you did something the Fed could tax now if you do not do something the Congress can tax-if that ruling is correct then why did we need to amend the constitution to allow for income tax????????
George jefferson You are so stupid you do not even know what treason is so your post is worthlessor you are a very bad troll.
And what makes him treasonous, since you rant that he is, otherwise you are talking out of the wrong end.
Jensee....no ...George always talks out of that end, for him it's normal.
Barrycare is a joke in the state of Texas because the exposure to Medicare and Medicaid will not be expanded and the doctors will not expand their practices simply to double their workload in exchange for financial "peanuts." In addition, through these actions, the parasites of society will leave the state to obtain coverage elsewhere. The real benefit also relates to less congestion in public places and medical facilities, with less crime and fewer junk vehicles on the roads. Final huge benefit is Obama and his SC bedfellow Roberts cannot do anything about it.
phucken republican idiotic racist scum
over 20 years of bush/perry retardation
how more moronic can you get
We'll you're doing a good job of playing the moron yourself.
Go suck somones elses sack, my friend
Thats about 1/4 of the Texas population. Better make sure these folks don't vote.
LOL Texas getting more backwards? How?
Willierd, it's only because our dimwit governor wants to opt out. Funny how he rails against the government until he wants them to pay for something like disaster relief. Dimwit won't fix our power grid which was patched after Hurricane Ike. Now every time the wind blows, we have power outages.
Texas has a lot to be proud of in many ways, but we are losing ground because we are now one of the worst states for math and science, worst in number of uninsured people, particularly children, worst for mental health care, one of the worst in education and infant mortality.
Lots of other things are a joke in Texas too. Education for one.
Oh yes-rationed care determined by the boys in Washington and no where to go if you do not like what you get-isn't it great the Government gets to decide what your insurance can and can not cover-now, now nurse Rachet says take your pill
Another talker who has not even seen what is in th bill
The government already decides what gets covered. Most medical practices get reimbursed based on what Medicare pays. Insurance companies base their coverages and payments on what Medicare pays. There are not going to be government panels deciding who gets treated and who doesn't.
Get real facts from the gov office www.healthcare.org
Don't bother to listening to rt wingers.....use nothing but facts from the gov office.
Private insurance has LONG decided what it won't pay for. Many private insurers would not cover well woman care, well baby care, wouldn't pay for mammograms and pap smears or birth control pills (even if there was a medical issue to need them)--but would pay for men's care. Don't let Faux news get in the way of facts.
One of my doctors told me that Medicare always pays; maybe not as much as private companies, but he never has to fight them to get them to pay, unlike some of the private companies. Private insurance tells you how many pills they will pay for a month...try suffering from migraines and being told that you can't have another refill until tomorrow or three days from now--that is rationing care. Dental insurance won't pay even if you go one day before you are allowed to for a cleaning.
Roberts said 2 things- it is a tax and #2, vote the man out of office, it is not his job as a Justice.
scalia is just another pompous a$$hole, woman hating, selfloathing closet gay, republican retard
Sounds like you're describing yourself, except for the republican part.
poor wally
either ten years old
or just another idiot who can't come up with anything original
except maybe another jiz gravy recipe
Greta retort Wally but its you bed time......Get your pacifier and go to bed. Wow last time I heard something like that was grade school and the kid who said it was like 8 years old
In the first place, what did you expect Scalia to say? Come on now, get real! By the way, Piers Morgan, asking about the spin-off of the Citizens United decision, the Super PACs, got this response from Scalia, "I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better. That's what the First Amendment is all about. So long as the people know where the speech is coming from." Well, that's just ducky, the only problem is that Scalia's own caveat has been violated. So, what do you say now Mr. Justice Scalia?
We shall see.....I have most often read that however contentious the debates, the justices are on very good terms with each other. If there is a rift, we may see a realignment on decisions. That will say far more about what went down than any gossip.
Scalia has the class of a whore who refuses to brush her teeth between clients. And, like the whore, he can't keep his mouth shut either.
Fun, fun, fun :^)
I never dreamed that Roberts of all people would throw us under the Bus. He did worst then that. He thew us undere the bus and then ran it over us several times. Now even if Obamacare is repealed, which i doubt it will be, he has opened the door to congress to call anythng they want to a tax and force the tac payer to do what th congress wants them to. Roberts had to be bought off. No sane reasonable person could look at the law can call that penalty a tax. Roberts was either bought of, threatened his life or his families life. Scalia is a liar as well he did have a falling out with Roberts. If what Roberts said is true he was worried about his image i hope he enjoys his image now. he ought to be burned in effigy. in front of the Supreme court. Justices like Roberts is what allowed Chavez to take over the government in Valenzuela and throw out the constitution and instate himself as the permanent leader. People call that conspiracy well I tell you sometimes conspiracy comes true and then it is usually too late to do anything about it.
unlike the fictional alabama jurors in "To Kill a Mockingbird", occasionally a republican will do the right thing
ihateliberals-3787409
Thank you for steping up to the plate and acting as poster-bubba for the ignorance, illiteracy and 'Jersey Housewife' mentality of the 'double-wide, confederate flag, get-er-done, Gee Oh Pee.
Can't spell. Maybe never 'red' a real book (like history or civics or grammar). But ya know what ya know.
It's probably just as well; If you could read, and read the Constitution you'd just conclude it was written by some radical left wing liberal. Ooh, sorry! Damn! That would be kinda true. And, we know you hate lib'rals.
Wake up Ihateliberals, the court didn't throw you under the bus it was the law. If you don't like the law and the constitution then move to another country, there are many out there that are quite conservative like Syria. The court is not political although many would like to have it be. Sorry dude at least we are in America that abides by the constitution until people like you take control then everyone else will be sent to the gaschamber as most tryants like to do with those who disagree.
Ihate.....YOU LOST.......now get real facts from the government website unless you wish to stay dishonest.
www.healthcare.org
@i hate liberals:
It's clear to most of us posters that your lousy grammar, spelling, and sentence structure shows that you also hate such liberal ideas as a proper education for all children. I'm sure you would rather believe in your 6000-year old flat earth as you cling to guns, your "fraydom" to be a complete idiot, and a wing nut version of religion. I guess you don't realize that Jesus would likely be too liberal for you.
This article says if we don't get insurance we pay a penalty. Where were they when the White House petitioned the court, saying it was a tax not a penalty, and where were they when the SCOTUS said it was a tax
I have not read all the comments. There seems to be many comments based on generalized emotion. Many people are arguing about Roberts and democracy, etc. Many people are chiming in about their readings of the Contstitution, which is good. I only hope that this encourages more reading about Constitutional interpretation and its complexities. But my first thought in reading this article was this, "What is a U.S. Supreme Court Jusitce doing on television? My second and more concerning thought is, "This guy is hocking a book and he is a Justice." Our judiciary is supposed to be impartial. But, he is injecting his opinion about judicial interpretation into the American polpulace; advocating for his interpretation, by implication if not expressly; and, commecnting on a recent decision. He can claim that he is impartial, but can he claim that he is not being political? It does not seem so. And if this is the case, then he should be removed because he, by his own action, is conciously undermining the underlying principals of the Constitution by using his influence to validate his own personal system of belief to the general populace and thereby attempting to influenece political opinion.
scalia should be impeached. He has no right to feud with anyone. Each judge decides based on the merits of their education and understanding of the law and constitution. The decisions aren't based on which political party you stand for. That's why we have the judges. There have many in history that take a more conservative or more liberal view. If the other judges don't like to uphold the constitution, but rather a political party they should be removed or they should in all good conscious if they had the courage to resign. If people don't like the consitution or think it's to liberal or too conservative or whatever then they can move to Syria they have alot of freedoms for such people. The court did what they did. It's not a political party. And see what more political minded people want to do with the court throw it into the junk heap with all the other political crap. Each judge has their reasons if they don't like the others then maybe they can learn from the other judge or as I said, if its a political reason Scalia voted on then resign. The court is not a political entity.
Anyone that believes that Roberts upheld the US Constitution in the health care ruling on "The Affordable Health Care Act" has evidently never studied the Constitution or...is as subversive as those who wrote and upheld this Obamination. If you lean toward Communism you will defend this law. If you lean toward freedom and liberty, you will oppose all laws that give the people's power back to the government. If you were educated in the public school system in the last 20 years, chances are good you do not know the difference. One must salute the communist movement and their methods in the destruction of the United States Constitutional system of government over these 30 years. Very systematic infiltration of the schools, breaking of immigration regulations, breaking of the financial system, creation of class warfare and hatred, drugs to weaken the mental capabilities, the breakdown of the family unit, the diastasis of moral integrity and unity, the list goes on. Quite efficient and following the predictions of President Lincoln in defeat from within...not from without. The incremental efforts and the systematic/methodical implementation is a thing to behold indeed. Still...apathy reigns supreme. The best ally of the Communist movement...apathy, then ignorance following as a close second....Just as it is instructive to read the foregoing comments. A virtual shower of ignorance and apathy. Testing whether a nation so conceived can long endure upon the face of this earth...any guesses?
No where in the Constitution of the United States does it state that health care will be provided by the government.The SCOTUS should have known that and found it un-constitutional.
But they didn't, haha!
The Constitution says nothing on the subject of the government providing health care, so the argument that it is unconstitutional is a difficult one to make.
On the other hand, the 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, but that didn't stop the Court from allowing the government to draft young men for more than 50 years.
So if the SCOTUS is willing to allow a policy explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, they certainly can allow the government to do things that are not explicitly prohibited.
Ron288115 - Oh really? And exactly where in the Constitution does it say "corporations are people" and should be allowed to make unlimited, undisclosed political contributions. You uptighty-righties have such pea brains. Now choke on it.
The Constitution doesn't provide for an Air Force, thus, per your defective logic, the Air Force is a COMMUNIST BRANCH OF THE MILITARY. Will all those CAPS.