Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 SCOTUS will likely strike it down as unconstitutional 5-4 or 5-3 if Kagan recuses herself. He went the wrong way with it. He refused to go after tort reform which remains the single largest contributing factor to rising health costs. If they strike it down...Obama is done. This is the only thing in your post with which I disagree. I see a 5-4 vote in favor, with an opinion written by Kennedy. I don't see Kagan recusing herself, though she REALLY should. If she did, you get the dreaded "plurality", or even worse 4-4 split, where the issue isn't controlling on future instances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Yes, he would've. Even after the incident, he was just 9000 votes short of holding off Jim Webb. That one incident, IMO, cost him the presidency of the United States. Allen was a man with considerable leadership experience, both in legislative and executive affairs. Just a shame he let his temper get the best of him that Charlottesville afternoon. It's a shame, the Republicans have been looking for a candidate that isn't a complete dud, when in all reality that man was George Allen. Ugh... He was presidential in old-school Virginia style. And football roots? He probably would lose in Dallas, Philly and New Jersey just because. Hes running against Tim Kaine for Senate for Webbs spot. I hope he wins because Kaine is a straight spender...part of why our roads look like $@. And it wasnt his temper, it was his liquor...of all the dumb mistakes to make during campaign season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 This is the only thing in your post with which I disagree. I see a 5-4 vote in favor, with an opinion written by Kennedy. I don't see Kagan recusing herself, though she REALLY should. If she did, you get the dreaded "plurality", or even worse 4-4 split, where the issue isn't controlling on future instances. It is going to be interesting, but I feel that the commerce section of it really does blow the bill up. The dufuses in congress did not fine tune it enough to be bulletproof and State AGs have had over a year to pick it apart. We know how competent the Justice Department is in this administration as well...Eric Holder could screw this up by himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuceswild 15 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) He was presidential in old-school Virginia style. And football roots? He probably would lose in Dallas, Philly and New Jersey just because. Hes running against Tim Kaine for Senate for Webbs spot. I hope he wins because Kaine is a straight spender...part of why our roads look like $@. And it wasnt his temper, it was his liquor...of all the dumb mistakes to make during campaign season. Temper, liquor, and a hint of racism. 3 strikes. You've got to at least make it out of the gate with less than 3, lol Edited August 11, 2011 by deuceswild Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Temper, liquor, and a hint of racism. 3 strikes. You've got to at least make it out of the gate with less than 3, lol Somebody forgot to babysit the politician. Its okay, Rubio might actually be the better alternative now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 It is going to be interesting, but I feel that the commerce section of it really does blow the bill up. The dufuses in congress did not fine tune it enough to be bulletproof and State AGs have had over a year to pick it apart. We know how competent the Justice Department is in this administration as well...Eric Holder could screw this up by himself. Normally, I would agree with you in saying that the Dormant Commerce Clause would defeat the law, but the Supreme Court has expanded the definition of the concept to where most anything would fit under it. Oddly enough, U.S. v. Morrison didn't, but that's about the only thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Normally, I would agree with you in saying that the Dormant Commerce Clause would defeat the law, but the Supreme Court has expanded the definition of the concept to where most anything would fit under it. Oddly enough, U.S. v. Morrison didn't, but that's about the only thing... I hope you are wrong. You think Kennedy will side with the bill? I have heard that the court rulings against the bill have been pretty solid decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.