its not so much about the decision as it is about the composition of the decision.
its been a serious 5 to 4 world for some time,
now its Girls against Boys


Girls against Boys

What is it exactly that you are saying?

I'm with Kat. Yes, what is it you are saying?

don't know what I'm saying really,
but all 3 women on the bench voted for, and 4 grumpy old men voted against.
if you've paid any attention to the supreme court the last decade or so, most important rulings have been 5 to 4, not exactly jurisprudence in my eye, but now that we have 3 women, well ... like I said I don't know what I'm saying really :-)


edited slightly for clarity.

Edited by asandh on 06/28/2012 17:26:16 MDT.

So the 2 men that ruled pro Obamacare are "girls"?
Not that I like Obamacare, but I don't get this.

The only correlation I can see here is that Democrat Presidents picked more female judges as their Supreme Court Justices, and these Democrat-picked Justices were likelier to vote for constitutional health care reform.

The big story, of course, is not gender/sex but Chief Justice Roberts voting contrary from what was deemed likely because of his background.

if I need to elaborate further its not worth continuing.
isn't a thread about the commingling of thoughts and ideas?

"if I need to elaborate further its not worth continuing.
isn't a thread about the commingling of thoughts and ideas?"

You put something out there and you even put that in the title of your thread. I am just wondering what you meant. You must have had something in mind.
Yes, commingling of thoughts and ideas, but at least let us know what thoughts and ideas made you write that exact sentence. Or should we just chuckle, get what you mean, wink wink, and smoke a cigar perhaps.... ; )

I'm Not being sexist if that's your concern.
I believe this is the first time SCOTUS has ever had 3 women on the bench, maybe it will turn out to be something, maybe it won't.
maybe it will help breakup the liberal - conservative dicotomy, maybe it won't.
that's about all I'll say, if no one else has an input, that's ok too.

Ok. I have plenty to say about the vote, not sure I will, I just did not know what to make of your angle on this.

Edited by leaftye on 06/28/2012 18:22:31 MDT.

"Ok. I have plenty to say about the vote, not sure I will"........

Me too.

I will say that I'm not as disappointed as some might think.

Clinton did not appoint Sotomayor.

I'm not sure why a health care system for an entire population should at all be reduced to a men vs. women issue. Why look at the sexes of the judges when considering how the decision was made? Men and women are perfectly capable of making decisions based on criteria other than a single political standpoint, no?

Im far more interested in whether the judges that voted for the power of government to use force to make a private citizen enter into a contract with a private for-profit entity are married to, related to, or have other entanglements in the health insurance field.
Medicare for all just died, the insurance sector just had a champagne toast and the ruling class just averted another threat to their hold on power.
Who would of guesses when a conservative think tank came up with Obamacare that it would be liberals that would make it a reality...and they say the two parties can't agree on anything. Money brings people together.

It has nothing to do with sex. It is philosophy and political principles.

It has nothing to do with sex. It is philosophy and political principles.

Isn't everything? :-)

"Medicare for all just died"

Not so fast

There is a provision that states can have there own plans that could be "medicare for all-like"

Vermont and Oregon have two such plans in the works

If these work, then other states will want to do the same, and we may eventually get "medicare for all"

That's what happened in Canada. First Saskatchewan (?) passed public health care which worked so well the other providences adopted the same.

And there are other paths to medicare for all although the current political climate makes anything almost impossible.

Roberts is second youngest on the court and the majority averaged 64.2 years old, while the dissenters averaged 69.7 years old. Generally, among 9 supreme court justices, voting for this decision were the women, the younger, and the more progressive (or the less doctrinally conservative?). Is any of that surprising? Even a high-flying mother would have spent more time with a sick kid at the doctor's office than Scalia, Kennedy or Thomas (no relation, BTW).

I have to agree with everyone else, Art. I have no idea what you were trying to say. If you want to "commingle ideas", well, you have to HAVE an idea, y'know?

OTOH if you just wanted to throw out an issue that you knew would inflame someone for sheer entertainment, well,... surprisingly it didn't work so well. Debate thus far is low-volume.

Edited by acrosome on 07/05/2012 15:01:17 MDT.