TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/obamaca ... lenge.html

Supreme Coourt reverses Appeals Court on Texas lawsuit on individual mandate.

Two of Trump’s appointments voted with the majority 7-2.

LikesShinyThings wrote:

philip964 wrote:OK here is a view I had not heard before.

Roberts gave Obama a poison pill.

He originally sided with the conservatives and appointed him self to write for the majority which at the time was to reject ObamaCare as unconstitutional.

The solicitor general said it was a tax, so Roberts considered that and agreed it was. He issued his opinion and asked the liberals to side with him and they did. They could have said no, but followed the liberal line and get ObamaCare found constitutional, even if it was called a tax. The Poison Pill.

For the rest of the time until the election the liberals must defend ObamaCare as not a tax. But when you say "its not a tax" enough pretty soon everyone just remembers "tax". They may win or they may loose. But you have to agree he has lit a fire under the conservatives like no other.

The Supreme Court is now adjourned. Their clock is not ticking.

Obama, Pelosi and Reed are all saying right now it is not a tax. It will no doubt be the focus of the election.

When the court resumes session in October, any party to the suit, another justice or Robert's himself can ask for a reconsideration of the ruling.

If Obama wins the elections, Roberts can simply write a new opinion, saying that for example: statements made by the president after the opinion was issued, say it is not a tax, we were mislead and therefore, Obamacare is unconstitutional. He has that power and can do it if he wants.

Or if Romney wins and the Republican's take both houses, he can do nothing and wait for it to be voided. Which is sort of what he said in his opinion.

Anyway this is a view I have not heard before.

Just curious - I would love to believe the bold part, but I've never heard that before. Do you know this from your own knowledge/education/profession/research/etc? Or did you "take someone's word for it"? (not trying to be derogatory ... basically trying to discern if this is coming to you from hearsay or from a reliable source)

I had never heard of this either. It was told to me personally by a successful litigator who I have great respect for.

OK here is a view I had not heard before.

Roberts gave Obama a poison pill.

He originally sided with the conservatives and appointed him self to write for the majority which at the time was to reject ObamaCare as unconstitutional.

The solicitor general said it was a tax, so Roberts considered that and agreed it was. He issued his opinion and asked the liberals to side with him and they did. They could have said no, but followed the liberal line and get ObamaCare found constitutional, even if it was called a tax. The Poison Pill.

For the rest of the time until the election the liberals must defend ObamaCare as not a tax. But when you say "its not a tax" enough pretty soon everyone just remembers "tax". They may win or they may loose. But you have to agree he has lit a fire under the conservatives like no other.

The Supreme Court is now adjourned. Their clock is not ticking.

Obama, Pelosi and Reed are all saying right now it is not a tax. It will no doubt be the focus of the election.

When the court resumes session in October, any party to the suit, another justice or Robert's himself can ask for a reconsideration of the ruling.

If Obama wins the elections, Roberts can simply write a new opinion, saying that for example: statements made by the president after the opinion was issued, say it is not a tax, we were mislead and therefore, Obamacare is unconstitutional. He has that power and can do it if he wants.

Or if Romney wins and the Republican's take both houses, he can do nothing and wait for it to be voided. Which is sort of what he said in his opinion.

Anyway this is a view I have not heard before.