Abruptly? It’s been rumored for awhile that he was going to retire. Hell a lot of court watchers thought he was going to leave last summer.
Depends. Are those rights so imperatively valuable as to be best established in the Constitution, safely beyond the reach of future interpretations? And are they so strongly and collectively supported so as to allow for its passage and ratification required for its addition to the Constitution? If yes and yes, then yes. If yes and no, no and yes, or no and no, then no.
Were I gay or valued that freedom and equality should be shared by all, it’d be sufficiently important to me.
Also I’m a little confused, because at this time yesterday pretty much every outlet said Trump still hadn’t made up his mind. So which is it? He was struggling with the decision up until yesterday afternoon or had there been some secret deal done for weeks?
The latter I think. Manufactured PR. Hardiman late pump was an effort to make conservatives breathe a sigh of relief (rather than groan) when it was Kavanaugh. That's why Fox is who broke that he was in Final 4. ACB was floated to make conservatives think they were considering a movement conservative. It was all orchestrated for effect.
Disagree about Barrett. Honestly that’s who I think Trump wanted, but McConnell warned him that she would be very tough to get confirmed because Collins and Murkowski weren’t going to support. That means with McCain being out, Republicans would have needed at least two Dems to cross over and vote for Barrett, which likely wasn’t going to happen.
I think Trump wanted an Ivy Leaguer. He doesn't care one bit about Roe v Wade etc. Just has to stick to the Federalist Society list. Manchin and the one from ND would have confirmed Barrett I think. Murkowski as well.
Well I remain skeptical until I see the results...O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and even Roberts have disappointed. Its too early to tell about Gorsuch. SCOTUS has become an oligarchy. It has waded into affairs that are best left to the people and the individual states to decide. It has created rights that do not exist. It has expanded the 14th amendment and commerce clause beyond their original intents. It has tacked like a runaway ship with the winds. I would love to see Lee and Barrett on the court. God willing, assuming he has not totally abandoned us, He will allow and guide us to put religious and moral people on the court. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams “Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” - John Jay first Chief Justice of SCOTUS
Obamacare ruling. This is one ruling but he disappoints on many levels with just this one ruling. 1.) he claims a penalty is a tax to avoid the argument over a penalty. 2.) any direct tax which the penalty would become under this opinion is a violation of the tax clause of the Constitution without apportionment. 3.) only income taxes under the 16th is exempt from that requirement but this penalty/tax component is regardless of income. 4.) the founders would have never approved a tax/penalty that was put on all individuals just for existing. This makes you a servant of the state. In fact anyone living on a small self sufficient farm back in the day would have paid no tax unless they voluntarily engaged in commerce. This freedom from the yoke of government and feudal thinking was the intent. 5.) the obamacare penalty is a throwback to feudal thinking where some sort of rent was owed the lord of the manor in this case the feds. Having contemplated this, one can only escape such rent seeking if one lived on a house boat that did not have any means of powered locomotion ( otherwise you have to pay a tax on the boat even if powered by sail) or became homeless. If I am able to realize my future of living in a RV and traveling the country one has to pay tax on the license plates and id. Even in these cases the individual mandate exposes you to the "kings" wrath and risks future imprisonment for failure to pay such a head tax. There was no jail component included in the original penalty but how soon would it be expanded to include that for people who refuse to pay and who have no "income" for the IRS to take. You would have the return of debtors prisons for owing a tax/penalty. Thus you become a serf and the government becomes the master and the voter the servant. It overthrows the intended order. A true originalist would never allow the government to bind people to a tax that does not have a legal mechanism for avoidance even if such avoidance is theoretical and not practical.
Think what you will. I am not trolling. I believe this stuff and am passionate about liberty bounded by the moral and religious boundaries that are required for our Constitution to actually work! If you will, a little research into the laws/state constitutions and mores of the day will reveal that they already considered the excesses of liberty and in many cases said explicitly that it was not an excuse to engage in licentiousness. Social libertarianism is nothing more than excusing licentiousness because of a lack of understanding or willful avoidance of the warning on licentiousness. Many of you "republicans" on this board are social libertarians. I am a Reaganite meaning I am a social, fiscal and national defense conservative. I would put social at the top of importance. There is nothing new under the sun and men like Adams were already addressing the issues we suffer today. He didnt have the terms socialism or collectivism to use but he addresses it. Those of you that moan about Trump, well he couldn't have gotten elected back in that day. He is a sign of the times and a result of a lack of mooring. I didn't vote for him so dont blame me for your depression and despair. I will say that the 8 years that I suffered such mental anguish under the previous clown has greatly abated under this clown. While I voted twice for Bush II I felt a great deal of malaise during his terms due to 9-11 and the wars. Politically I haven't been at ease since the days of Bush I. While Mr Newt did bring renewed hope that we would finally see the Reagan revolution come into full ascendancy, it has not fully fruited.
No, he was simply being honest in calling it what it was, and what Obama Admin had resisted calling it for purely political purposes - a tax. And as such, he merely recognized that Congress was well within its Constitutional limits to levy and collect it. That’s as originalist as it gets, even if you disagree and don’t prefer the outcome of his doing so. I hated that he voted that way, too, but respected that he called it what it was, and stood up that the Constitution allowed for it. That’s any jurists job.
We will have to agree to disagree on our views of originalism and assuredly the constitutionality of such a tax. The power to tax is not absolute and is restricted to the means and processes as defined in said Constitution even if archaic in nature. The 16th did not give congress carte blanche either. The penalty component is absent consideration of income and hence does not fall under the 16th. It therefore is bound by the original tax clauses. Since it based on the individual it is a direct tax aka head tax. The penalty/tax as enforced is outside the bounds of the tax clause because it is not apportioned among the states. As for originalism, do you really think the founders would have passed such a law? If not then you have your answer.
I don't know why I am doing this, but the founders wouldn't have passed clean air acts, either. It isn't 1798 any longer.
