Roberts, May Have Slyly Handed Election To Romney

As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.


John Roberts is playing at a different game than just about everyone else. While most are viewing a poker hand. He’s playing chess. 

Although we believe the concern is invalid, Roberts is concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the Courts reputation


Roberts written opinion forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue.


Roberts has expanded Congresses taxation power. By blocking the Commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers.


Roberts opinion forces everyone to deal with the Health Care problem politically. Democrats are going to have a hard time running up to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. The Law remains very unpopular with the American people. A vote for Health Care is now a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, we can not wait to see how that works out for them. 


Roberts decision also totally removes a growing left-wing talking point. Suddenly voting for Obama because of Supreme Court judges in November issue is gone. 


If they do not squander it Congressional Republicans have been handed an opportunity to try to shut down the individual mandate thereby Forcing Democrats on the record about the mandate. 

60% of Americans still agree with Republicans on the issue. The Democrats will continue claiming that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground. 


It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game, and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House. Read More Here

Missed Our 2011 Summer Fun Family Picnic?

 Don’t Miss The Fun in 2012

Join Us For An Evening Of Summer Family Fun

July 19, 2012 6:00PM

     
 Follow NJECPAC on Twitter,  Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn 

Explore More at NJECPAC

Supreme Court Now Poised To Rule On Constitutionality Of The Affordable Care Act

Justices' questions suggest skepticism about health care law


The questions asked by U.S. Supreme Court justices Tuesday during arguments on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law suggest that a majority on the court may have serious doubts about whether the law can be upheld. Yesterday, justices will considered whether parts of the law can remain in place if the court strikes down the requirement that individuals carry health insurance.


Realistically, In the case before them it is not the job of the Supreme court to decide or even take into account the sustainability of the rest of the Law. The case before them is the Constitutionality of the Mandate to purchase Health Insurance or be penalized. What happens to the law if they decide the Mandate is Unconstitutional is not their role in the case.

Justices on the asked highly nuanced questions over the three straight days of oral arguments. It seemed that some are torn on whether it would be more of a break from past cases to strike down the so-called individual mandate to obtain insurance or to uphold it. What past cases have to do with if a law is constitutional or not is beyond me.

They were aggressive in their questioning of both sides, and fired off hard-hitting questions about the limits of the federal government's power and whether it could even extend to requiring eating broccoli and buying gym memberships or cars, and rightfully so.

The main stream media defined Conservative Justices took aim at the insurance mandate, while the so called liberal justices supported it. Which is to be expected. 

We question the Medias defining a Supreme Court Justice as Conservative or Liberal, They are there to rule on the law and constitutionality of various issues. It is not their role to impose their assumed political ideology 

A ruling on the law is expected in late June. Read More

 Follow NJECPAC on Twitter,  Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn 

Explore More at NJECPAC

US Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Obamacare

Just as we had previously predicted, the Supreme will hear the challenge to the health care overhaul law brought by 26 states and NFIB. 

The arguments are expected to be heard sometime in March, and a decision would most likely follow sometime in June in the heat of the Presidential Election. "The health care law has not lived up to its promises of reducing costs, allowing citizens to keep their coverage or improving a cumbersome system that has long been a burden to small-business owners and employees, alike," said NFIB President and CEO Dan Danner. 

The NFIB plans to argue the individual mandate provision of the health care law is a violation of the US Constitution and can not stand on its own without it, NFIB President and CEO Dan Danner writes, "the existence of the individual mandate will set a precedent that will allow and embolden Congress to compel Americans to do, and to buy, whatever the government commands," Read More

Follow NJECPAC on Twitter,  Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn 

Explore More at NJECPAC

US Supreme Court Ruling Wipes Out Nearly 600 NLRB Decisions

The US Supreme Court Rules that a 2-Member Board Lacked Authority to Make Rulings

On June 17, 2010 the US Supreme Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was not authorized to act during the 27-month period after December 2007 when the Board had only two of its five members.

The Supreme Court held, 5 to 4, that Section 3(b) of the NLRA requires that, when the Board delegates its authority to a three-member group, that delegee group must maintain a membership of three in order for the delegation to remain valid and allow the exercise of the delegated authority.

During the 27 month period of the two-member Board, it issued nearly 600 decisions. Over 70 of those decisions were challenged in federal appellate courts on the basis that the Board did not have authority to act.

For the full text of the Supreme Court Decision Click Here