So John Roberts is going to have a veto of anything Congress passes?

[Alhena]

Does this not bother anyone else? I was reading some legal articles where experts said there was real doubt whether the Slaughter procedure the House is planning on using was Constitutional.

Well, Roberts and company at the Supreme Court would only need a halfway decent fig leaf of an argument to declare the whole thing uncontitutional, and it sounds like they have that and then some.

I'm assuming this will pass, but if it does, the Supreme Court is going to be a serious cloud hanging over it. Can we not get the votes with a non-gimmicky straight up vote?

[WCGreen]

1. I think that is the objective...

[jaxx]

2. Reminds me of the Impeach Earl Warren billboard way back when.

Impeach John Roberts would look good on a billboard.

[TheWraith]

3. No.

1. It's constitutional, unless you listen to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

2. The Supreme Court is a hell of a lot more complex than "John Roberts gets a veto."

[shraby]

4. It's a procedure that's been used hundreds of times by the

Republicans themselves. If you listen to anything but Fox and Cnn you'd know that.

[izzybeans]

5. It's not called the Slaughter procedure. That's something rightwingers call it to hide the fact that

they used constantly and that it is a constitutional procedure because the constitution lets congress set its own rules.

[gratuitous]

6. Unlikely, but youneverknow

The Supreme Court is (usually) highly reluctant to get entangled with the internal workings of the other two branches of government, and if the House wants to conduct its internal affairs in a certain manner, the Court is likely not to interfere. With the Roberts Gang running things, though, I don't bet on anything these crooks wouldn't try.

That being said, I'm guessing that the articles you're reading are last gasp attempts by bitter dead-enders desperate to deny a Democratic legislative victory, who will grasp at any straw.

[bridgit]

7. A fig leaf would be enough in a world where the SCOTUS has no clothes

But it still won't cover the junk

[karynnj]

8. There is no problem -

Here's an excellent Daily Kos Diary -http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/16/846788/-Bipartisanship-at-last!-GOP-demands-up-or-down-vote-on-health-care! and another that shows how this is common. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/17/847091/-OMG!-100-times-worse-than-Watergate! that shows that this is valid.

[Romulox]

9. This is how our government has always worked. I'm not understanding your complaint. nt

[Alhena]

10. Yeah, and campaign finance law always worked a certain way ...

for decades until Robert and Co decided to hurt Democrats by saying otherwise.

[Romulox]

12. I don't agree with the decision, but nobody doubts the SCOTUS' power to make it.

Nor does anyone doubt the SCOTUS' power to review the actions of the other two branches for their Constitutionality.

[zazen]

11. but the SCOTUS 12/00 coup was much more irrational, and it happened

I don't think we can rely on appeals to Republicans on the basis of rationality, precedence, or any basic sense of fairness. That's not their game.

So, maybe it won't happen because of the complications as someone stated above, but for it not to happen because Republicans do it all the time? When has that ever stopped them?

[lame54]

13. Will it precedent to turn over the tax cuts for the rich?

[Bitwit1234]

14. Bullcrap if this deem and pass (if it is used) comes up

how can the Supreme Court justify voting against it when they allowed bush to use it 15 times during the eight years he stole the presidency. No they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[tekisui]

15. It won't get anywhere in the Supreme Court.

I doubt they would even hear the case. They will deem it in the political realm and out of their jurisdiction.

[laughingliberal]

16. I don't see that happening. nt