da1c7a49
XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: user@nowhere.com
On 7/1/2012 9:53 PM, Charles Bell wrote:
> On Jul 1, 9:34 pm, Josh wrote:
>> On 7/1/2012 9:02 PM, Charles Bell wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, did you silently predict Justice Roberts would side with
>>> the socialists and thus you can announce prescient victory?
>>
>>> Josh Rosenbluth Dec 13 2010, 9:29 pm
>>
>>> I predict no Appeals court will issue its final ruling that the
>>> mandate is unconstitutional, and SCOTUS will never hear the case.
>>
>>> If I am wrong about the above, SCOTUS will uphold the law by somewhere
>>> between and 8-1 and 6-3 margin.
>>
>>> Remember, you heard it here first.
>>
>> My prediction was way off. What I thought was an easy decision under
>> precedent turned into a partisan battle.
>
> And as I predict, there is never a constitutional issue before SCOTUS
> which is not a partisan battle between nationalist/socialists and
> federalist/democrats. (with Kennedy being ideologically not fixed and
> Scalia fixed in precedent) What made this hard to predict (except by
> Ann Coulter, as it turns out) was the influence of Prof.Tribe/Harvard
> Law on Roberts.
Coulter predicted this outcome ahead of time?
> And my point was to conservatives, unless you want
> another 30 years of this nonsense under Roberts, consider a
> Constitutional Amendment to either alter the Senate or create a
> Constitutional Committee because it is getting very hard to find
> within the federal judiciary any judge who is not a nationalist/
> socialist. President Bush's first choice over Roberts in Harriet Miers
> is looking pretty wise (and prescient), but the conservatives scolded
> him over that and look what they got.
Miers was the first choice over Alito (Roberts had already been nominated).
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
