Your opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts

[gabosaurus]

I am truly baffled that Roberts provided the swing vote. He has always been a very conservative Justice in his limited time on the bench.
Your opinions would be appreciated.

[logroller]

I am truly baffled that Roberts provided the swing vote. He has always been a very conservative Justice in his limited time on the bench.
Your opinions would be appreciated.

Clearly, this is Bush's fault.:laugh2:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

IMHO, Roberts and all that voted with him should be tried in court, when found guilty they should be shot for treason!:flyflag:--Tyr

[ConHog]

I am truly baffled that Roberts provided the swing vote. He has always been a very conservative Justice in his limited time on the bench.
Your opinions would be appreciated.


Odd ruling for sure. Just goes to show that (mis)interpreting the COTUS doesn't have to be limited to one particular political view.

[aboutime]

Though I was not only surprised, but disappointed to no end after hearing the decision this morning. I've had all day to read, and personally form a different opinion of Roberts. Somewhat as a Devils advocate.
I know many are angry with him, and even calling for punishment as traitors. But, since that's not realistic, or possible in this day and age.
I find myself supposing that Roberts did a magical trick of sorts, appeasing the Dems, and Obama who always accused him of being a solid Republican Shill, placed there by Bush.

Today. Instead of making the Dems and Obama more angry. He kind of lowered a Boom on them as something they obviously WERE NOT expecting in seemingly siding with their claims about Constitutionality...while breaking that declaration off by Telling the American people. What Obama had been lying about for two years, in Obamacare Not being a Tax. He (Roberts) proved that Obamacare can only be A TAX, and consequently. Only the Congress has the power to Raise taxes. But...in doing so at this time, so close to the election. RAISING TAXES is Political Suicide for many. But not for Obama...who I honestly believe...does Not want to serve a 2nd term.

[logroller]

IMHO, Roberts and all that voted with him should be tried in court, when found guilty they should be shot for treason!:flyflag:--Tyr
That's not very constitutional.

[ConHog]

That's not very constitutional.

:link: ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's not very constitutional.

Why not, they'd just appeal it to the SCOTUS and then vote in their own favor.;)

[logroller]

:link: ?
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35752-Your-opinion-of-Chief-Justice-John-Roberts&p=561339#post561339;)


Why not, they'd just appeal it to the SCOTUS and then vote in their own favor.;)
:laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35752-Your-opinion-of-Chief-Justice-John-Roberts&p=561339#post561339;)


:laugh:

-----:beer:

[OCA]

Good man, voted his conscience.

[avatar4321]

I honestly just dont get it. I read the decision. He argues that it's not a tax for the purpose of the anti-injunction act but it is to uphold the mandate. It makes no sense. The rest of the argument is perfectly good. It does limit the Commerce clause. It gives the States more power. But he could have voted to overthrow it making the same points. It just doesnt make sense.

[bullypulpit]

Roberts couched the language in terms, not of the Commerce Clause as one would have expected, but in terms of Congress' authority to levee taxes. The GOP spin machine immediately picked up on this as a "tax increase on the middle-class". Well, when you've nothing to grasp at but straws, you build straw men.

But I am gratified to see those on the right finally get pissed off about something Dubbyuh did.

[jimnyc]

Roberts couched the language in terms, not of the Commerce Clause as one would have expected, but in terms of Congress' authority to levee taxes. The GOP spin machine immediately picked up on this as a "tax increase on the middle-class". Well, when you've nothing to grasp at but straws, you build straw men.

You're correct in the fact that this statement is wrong. It's a tax to everyone, not just the middle class. And look at the projections, this will easily be the largest tax increase ever. And then we'll all see our premiums and co-pays go up.

[jimnyc]

But I am gratified to see those on the right finally get pissed off about something Dubbyuh did.

Was GWB the one who stated this was not a tax, and would not institute a tax on Americans making less than a certain amount? Nope, that was McChimpy!

[OCA]

You're correct in the fact that this statement is wrong. It's a tax to everyone, not just the middle class. And look at the projections, this will easily be the largest tax increase ever. And then we'll all see our premiums and co-pays go up.

Premiums and co-pays already went up, I didn't have a deductible until last year(affordable care act not enacted yet)...........guess what? Got a healthy one..............last year.

[jimnyc]

Premiums and co-pays already went up, I didn't have a deductible until last year(affordable care act not enacted yet)...........guess what? Got a healthy one..............last year.

The majority doesn't take effect until 2014 - and then the costs will increase, and then they get passed on to you.

[OCA]

The majority doesn't take effect until 2014 - and then the costs will increase, and then they get passed on to you.

Costs will go down, no more passing the costs of the care of the uninsured on to the insured.

Not exactly sure why that is hard to understand.

[jimnyc]

Costs will go down, no more passing the costs of the care of the uninsured on to the insured.

Not exactly sure why that is hard to understand.

Tsk, tsk. Try reading the bill and its effects. Pretty much EVERYONE agrees that once fully instituted, the underlying costs of medical care will increase. Increases will be felt by the insurance companies. As a result, premiums and co-pays will go up. You are naive enough to think costs disappear. Every single article from the experts that I have read thus far all state that these costs will increase. And as per usual, when that happens, the costs get passed onto the consumer.

[DragonStryk72]

Well... sigh. that's the final nail in it, I guess. Mom will not be able to live on her own once 2014 rolls around, so guess I'll be taking her in. Thank you Dems for screwing my mom over, who has worked hard all her life, and deserved far fucking better than this piece of shit legislation.

[OCA]

Tsk, tsk. Try reading the bill and its effects. Pretty much EVERYONE agrees that once fully instituted, the underlying costs of medical care will increase. Increases will be felt by the insurance companies. As a result, premiums and co-pays will go up. You are naive enough to think costs disappear. Every single article from the experts that I have read thus far all state that these costs will increase. And as per usual, when that happens, the costs get passed onto the consumer.

Insurance companies will simply raise rates because they inevitably will lose some customers and they will be damned if their profits will go down.

If they played the game fairly this legislation would see cost decreases.

[DragonStryk72]

Insurance companies will simply raise rates because they inevitably will lose some customers and they will be damned if their profits will go down.

If they played the game fairly this legislation would see cost decreases.

Lose customers how? There is a literal mandate saying they have to have insurance. Not to mention what this is going to do for malpractice suits, and the sheer bureaucracy involved, because the federal goverment's gonna want it's input, and just ever other horribly bloated thing Obama puts into effect,there's gonna be a ton of extra waster. Oh, and then there's going to be the loophole abusive by people who do the math.

[jimnyc]

Insurance companies will simply raise rates because they inevitably will lose some customers and they will be damned if their profits will go down.

If they played the game fairly this legislation would see cost decreases.

ANY business that sees a reason to lose profits will in turn try and increase profits via their consumers. The costs of the care will increase, the standard of care decrease. Then the insurance companies will take a beating - and who at the bottom rung will take the ultimate beating? That's right, the taxpayers aka consumers.

[OCA]

Lose customers how? There is a literal mandate saying they have to have insurance. Not to mention what this is going to do for malpractice suits, and the sheer bureaucracy involved, because the federal goverment's gonna want it's input, and just ever other horribly bloated thing Obama puts into effect,there's gonna be a ton of extra waster. Oh, and then there's going to be the loophole abusive by people who do the math.

Oh they will be insured, many will choose the lesser options simply because of budgetary concerns, gov. option etc. etc., the major ins. companies will see a decrease in customers.

[OCA]

ANY business that sees a reason to lose profits will in turn try and increase profits via their consumers. The costs of the care will increase, the standard of care decrease. Then the insurance companies will take a beating - and who at the bottom rung will take the ultimate beating? That's right, the taxpayers aka consumers.

Whats Jimnyc's alternative to put on the table?

[fj1200]

Good man, voted his conscience.

Conscience is not the issue.

[fj1200]

Premiums and co-pays already went up, I didn't have a deductible until last year(affordable care act not enacted yet)...........guess what? Got a healthy one..............last year.

Plenty has been enacted............last two years.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

Unfunded mandates on private enterprise.

[aboutime]

To put it bluntly with reference to what took place yesterday by the SCOTUS, that made Obama, and the other Ignorant, Dumb Democrats cheer, can be summed up in three words:

"America. We're Screwed."

[logroller]

I honestly just dont get it. I read the decision. He argues that it's not a tax for the purpose of the anti-injunction act but it is to uphold the mandate. It makes no sense. The rest of the argument is perfectly good. It does limit the Commerce clause. It gives the States more power. But he could have voted to overthrow it making the same points. It just doesnt make sense.

I know what you mean, I didn't get it either at first. I think what he meant was, if I may paraphrase,

Your mincing of words demonstrates your failure as legislators-- you politicians need to resolve problematic laws you, yourselves, have created-- if you insist on making the Court resolve your bickering you will be sorely compensated.

[Mr. P]

Like most here, I don't know much about the man so I really have no opinion about him per se.

As far as his vote goes, though, I think he stepped outside the purview of the court an stuck his toe into politics. I'm not happy with that.

In doing so, though, he smacked the American people up side the head with a 2x4 and said "It's BROKE, FIX IT"! Essentially, he built a fire under our collective asses, and may very well have insured Romney is elected in November.

[aboutime]

Like most here, I don't know much about the man so I really have no opinion about him per se.

As far as his vote goes, though, I think he stepped outside the purview of the court an stuck his toe into politics. I'm not happy with that.

In doing so, though, he smacked the American people up side the head with a 2x4 and said "It's BROKE, FIX IT"! Essentially, he built a fire under our collective asses, and may very well have insured Romney is elected in November.

Thank you Mr. P.
I liked the way you said it. Bluntly, and to the point.
As for the election. I'd prefer not to count my chickens on that right now.
I remember the huge number of easily led, uneducated, biased Americans who
voted for Obama the first time.
And we haven't really seen any Mass Re-Education, or Pre-Education taking place by those who are still waiting for the OBAMA-BUCKS to flow into their Poor, Welfare Check fingers as promised.

[Abbey Marie]

Good man, voted his conscience.

I don't remember studying any case law on conscience in Con Law.

I know it is probably too much to expect our Justices to render decisions based on the Constitution, and not their politics, conscience, or any other personal issues.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Like most here, I don't know much about the man so I really have no opinion about him per se.

As far as his vote goes, though, I think he stepped outside the purview of the court an stuck his toe into politics. I'm not happy with that.

In doing so, though, he smacked the American people up side the head with a 2x4 and said "It's BROKE, FIX IT"! Essentially, he built a fire under our collective asses, and may very well have insured Romney is elected in November.

He may have well done as you say but it is not his job or sworn duty to do so (in fact it's against his sworn duty ). His meddling just gave the Federal government vast power to tax anything for any reason as Roberts's decision seems to say just base everything you do on a tax, simply place a tax into every bill you want upheld against a Constitutional challenge, its maddening and crazy. Justice Scalia would likely love to just slap the hell out of Roberts in my opinion! I know that I would far more than once if given the chance! For he gave authority to Obama, the Executive branch WHEN IN COLLUSION WITH CONGRESS that will be used in a very destructive manner should obama get another term. He should have simply struck the law down and let our representatives then correct or not correct the problem.
I find fault where its is amply due! -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Roberts was showing off his legal skills. He shoulda stayed in the law business.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Roberts was showing off his legal skills. He shoulda stayed in the law business.

A very costly and destructive ego trip which will cause misery and dire consequences to millions of hard working Americans. Exactly why Supreme Court appointments are so very critical to this nation's survival. Roberts's decision actually if not corrected at great effort and cost to we the people will send us farther down the road towards socialism, instead of walking at a slow pace that idiot just put it in a race car! I hope someday he receives exactly the just reward that he truly deserves for this willful travesty ! May God grant me that number of days to see his just punishment delivered! -Tyr

[CockySOB]

While my political self would have preferred that he had voted with Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ. my libertarian self is very pleased that he worked the limits into the Commerce Clause, the Necessary & Proper Clause, the Taxing Clause and the Spending Clause as he did. Yes, he ruled that Congress has the authority for the mandate under the Taxing Clause, but he laid a minefield out which would render in unconstitutional should the federal government trip any of those mines.

In short, I think the Chief Justice acquitted himself well, and set he groundwork to undo much of the federal power-grab since the New Deal.

Now... on to the rest of the PPACA for judicial surgery! Next up... the health insurance exchanges!

[OCA]

I don't remember studying any case law on conscience in Con Law.

I know it is probably too much to expect our Justices to render decisions based on the Constitution, and not their politics, conscience, or any other personal issues.

They did, apparently its constitutional.

[OCA]

Conscience is not the issue.

Sure it is, he knew it was constitutional but wasn't going to be bullied by rtwing nutjobs.

[OCA]

Thank you Mr. P.
I liked the way you said it. Bluntly, and to the point.
As for the election. I'd prefer not to count my chickens on that right now.
I remember the huge number of easily led, uneducated, biased Americans who
voted for Obama the first time.
And we haven't really seen any Mass Re-Education, or Pre-Education taking place by those who are still waiting for the OBAMA-BUCKS to flow into their Poor, Welfare Check fingers as promised.


So let me see if I have this straight, only way to show you are educated is to vote for the person with the (R) by their name?

If so you sir are an elitist.

[aboutime]

A very costly and destructive ego trip which will cause misery and dire consequences to millions of hard working Americans. Exactly why Supreme Court appointments are so very critical to this nation's survival. Roberts's decision actually if not corrected at great effort and cost to we the people will send us farther down the road towards socialism, instead of walking at a slow pace that idiot just put it in a race car! I hope someday he receives exactly the just reward that he truly deserves for this willful travesty ! May God grant me that number of days to see his just punishment delivered! -Tyr


Tyr. In many ways. I have to also agree with your take on what Roberts has done to the nation. I do suspect. Obama's intimidation during the previous weeks played a very big...but wholly Unconstitutional part in how Roberts responded.
I still feel that what I previously said here applies. But I failed to personally see how Roberts allowed his obvious feelings to preserve the entire court...as a Non-political entity to overrule his constitutional responsibilities as a Judge FIRST.
The only remedy. If you can call it that, is. The Election in November where Obama MUST be outed, and at least 5 new Republican Senators take their seats to get our nation back on a DO-SOMETHING, rather than DO-NOTHING BUT ARGUE congress.
With all of this. I maintain that my biggest, most serious concerns are for 5 Little People who call me Pop, as their Grand father.
God Only knows what their future will become if we allow this CRAP to continue.

[ConHog]

So let me see if I have this straight, only way to show you are educated is to vote for the person with the (R) by their name?

If so you sir are an elitist.

You have it wrong. The new craze here is you're an uneducated idiot if you disagree with them to any degree on ANY issue, even if you did vote (R)

[jimnyc]

You have it wrong. The new craze here is you're an uneducated idiot if you disagree with them to any degree on ANY issue, even if you did vote (R)

At least OCA is posting on topic...

[OCA]

At least OCA is posting on topic...

Thanks for noticing, i'm hoping to build up enough credit for 1 weeks worth of ass ripping.

Got 3 members here who are deserving of such treatment.

[jimnyc]

Thanks for noticing, i'm hoping to build up enough credit for 1 weeks worth of ass ripping.

Got 3 members here who are deserving of such treatment.

Well, right now we're not tolerating it at all. You're free to go to the cage and have fun if it's a must. I would prefer that over little jabs crapping up threads all over the place. BUT, I can't guarantee you that others will participate, and their lack of, doesn't mean it's ok to now go after them wherever they may post.

But I think if you just stay on topic and have fun like you've been doing, then there's little need to do anything else!

[OCA]

Well, right now we're not tolerating it at all. You're free to go to the cage and have fun if it's a must. I would prefer that over little jabs crapping up threads all over the place. BUT, I can't guarantee you that others will participate, and their lack of, doesn't mean it's ok to now go after them wherever they may post.

But I think if you just stay on topic and have fun like you've been doing, then there's little need to do anything else!

Asked 1 of them to go to the cage.......got thread banned for pointing that out.......dunno.

[jimnyc]

Asked 1 of them to go to the cage.......got thread banned for pointing that out.......dunno.

Because others don't want to read threads and see invites and such to go fight? You did so after I asked the crap to stop. Seriously, start a thread in there if you want to fight, make it non-existent in these threads.

[logroller]

While my political self would have preferred that he had voted with Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ. my libertarian self is very pleased that he worked the limits into the Commerce Clause, the Necessary & Proper Clause, the Taxing Clause and the Spending Clause as he did. Yes, he ruled that Congress has the authority for the mandate under the Taxing Clause, but he laid a minefield out which would render in unconstitutional should the federal government trip any of those mines.

In short, I think the Chief Justice acquitted himself well, and set he groundwork to undo much of the federal power-grab since the New Deal.

Now... on to the rest of the PPACA for judicial surgery! Next up... the health insurance exchanges!
I think the exchanges are the best part; anything to get individuals to pursue their own alternatives is good in my book.

[Mr. P]

While my political self would have preferred that he had voted with Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ. my libertarian self is very pleased that he worked the limits into the Commerce Clause, the Necessary & Proper Clause, the Taxing Clause and the Spending Clause as he did. Yes, he ruled that Congress has the authority for the mandate under the Taxing Clause, but he laid a minefield out which would render in unconstitutional should the federal government trip any of those mines.

In short, I think the Chief Justice acquitted himself well, and set he groundwork to undo much of the federal power-grab since the New Deal.

Now... on to the rest of the PPACA for judicial surgery! Next up... the health insurance exchanges!

I agree.

The way I see it one mine, the "tax" mine, has already been tripped. Only the house can create a tax. They didn't do that in this bill, they said penalty which was declared unconstitutional, so I see this new "tax" that was settled on, being the next constitutional challenge. This tax wasn't Constitutionally created. Seems like a no brainer to me.

It's also why I think he, Roberts, said something to the effect that "it's not up to the court to settle or set policy, go deal with them (Congress)" or words to that affect anyway.

So, In joining the liberal Judges in their decision Roberts set the stage for repeal. In doing so he also Slapped the Executive with clarification of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause, both found unconstitutional in this case.

I may be wrong, we'll see..

[CockySOB]

Mr. P, I'm still puzzled though as to why the Chief Justice chose not to address that aspect of the tax issue. Perhaps the House might have standing to challenge the origin of the mandate as having come from the Senate?

Good question though, and I understand a few conservative pundits have asked the same question. Personally, I think it's a weak argument at this point.

[Kathianne]

I agree.

The way I see it one mine, the "tax" mine, has already been tripped. Only the house can create a tax. They didn't do that in this bill, they said penalty which was declared unconstitutional, so I see this new "tax" that was settled on, being the next constitutional challenge. This tax wasn't Constitutionally created. Seems like a no brainer to me.

It's also why I think he, Roberts, said something to the effect that "it's not up to the court to settle or set policy, go deal with them (Congress)" or words to that affect anyway.

So, In joining the liberal Judges in their decision Roberts set the stage for repeal. In doing so he also Slapped the Executive with clarification of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause, both found unconstitutional in this case.

I may be wrong, we'll see..

Use of those clauses was deemed wrong in justifying the mandate, if I'm understanding correctly. One cannot be compelled to action by either. I think there was someone that said, 'you could be penalized for not growing wheat...' but not by Commerce Clause or N & P clauses. He took away the federal 'stick' in the sense that the Fed cannot say, "State X, if you fail to do such and such, you will lose highway funding..."

[SassyLady]

I agree.

The way I see it one mine, the "tax" mine, has already been tripped. Only the house can create a tax. They didn't do that in this bill, they said penalty which was declared unconstitutional, so I see this new "tax" that was settled on, being the next constitutional challenge. This tax wasn't Constitutionally created. Seems like a no brainer to me.

It's also why I think he, Roberts, said something to the effect that "it's not up to the court to settle or set policy, go deal with them (Congress)" or words to that affect anyway.

So, In joining the liberal Judges in their decision Roberts set the stage for repeal. In doing so he also Slapped the Executive with clarification of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause, both found unconstitutional in this case.

I may be wrong, we'll see..

I agree with Cocky SOB and Mr. P's assessment of Roberts.

In addition, I have always admired Roberts and have been digesting this decision. I have a tendency to trust my intuition and on this issue I think he was quite cagey. I think Roberts listened to Obama's lawyers and took them at their word .... it's a tax, so he threw it back in their lap.

[Kathianne]

I agree with Cocky SOB and Mr. P's assessment of Roberts.

In addition, I have always admired Roberts and have been digesting this decision. I have a tendency to trust my intuition and on this issue I think he was quite cagey. I think Roberts listened to Obama's lawyers and took them at their word .... it's a tax, so he threw it back in their lap.

Yep, he threw it back to the people. In November. Reminder, Romney raised over $4m dollars in 24 hours after SCOTUS ruling,

[Mr. P]

Mr. P, I'm still puzzled though as to why the Chief Justice chose not to address that aspect of the tax issue. Perhaps the House might have standing to challenge the origin of the mandate as having come from the Senate?

Good question though, and I understand a few conservative pundits have asked the same question. Personally, I think it's a weak argument at this point.

So am I. I'm still pondering it. I'd hate to find that the intent was that dreaded "Legislation from the Bench" monster. I hope instead it's a call for America to "WAKE UP and look at WTF they're doing to you before it's to late"!

We'll see I guess.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So am I. I'm still pondering it. I'd hate to find that the intent was that dreaded "Legislation from the Bench" monster. I hope instead it's a call for America to "WAKE UP and look at WTF they're doing to you before it's to late"!

We'll see I guess.

Looks entirely too much like that dreaded, "Legislation from the bench monster" to me. For to get the issue resolved by the voters and legislators all had to be done was strike down he law. Let it be rewritten and resubmitted, as it is the monster has to be repealed! Robeerts was entirely wrong even if his intentions were honrable and I do not think that they were. I am far from being alone in that judgement. He chose political activism rather than simple justice, simple justice would have been to simply strike the law down, THEN LET POLITICS PLAY ITS COURSE FROM THERE! IMHO-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304475/john-roberts-super-taxer-larry-kudlow

Roberts just put the progressive agenda on the FAST TRACK. He in essence ruled that any tax , even a tax for not buying is legal . He opened the door to a Pandora's box IMHO. With his ruling personal liberty just got machined gunned at close range! Go ahead postulate all the silver linings that you care to dream up but the reality is that he executed judicial activism when simple justice was called for and right! He set precedent that now , we citizens have no choice to buy or not , because the government can tax us either way! Just imagine what our founders would have said about that! And this guy will be there for decades assuming his health holds out. These infiltrators often come to light when they stab in the back and set forth extremely disasterious consequences. Had he rightly and simply struck down the law because it failed Constitutional muster, the burden would be on obama, the socialists to attempt to ram it down our throats again thus having to climb a very dangerous and tall mountain. He preferred making the citizens and their representatives spend great effort, wealth and time to now overcome that which could have been placed back on its corrupt creators thus making us climb that damn mountain! Dont give me that ffing shat about his good intentions! I didnt fall off a turnip truck heading to market yesterday! Even should they prove to actually be truly his "good intentions" , I remind everybody reading this post that the road to hell is paved with "good intentions" and Roberts saw fit to make us have to walk back from that road with a heavy burden on our shoulders and shoeless in the wintertime!
Post is all my damn words , every damn one of them, so no damn link required for these words !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! :salute:--Tyr
the link provided above just helps illustrate the correctness of my words here below..

[aboutime]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304475/john-roberts-super-taxer-larry-kudlow

Roberts just put the progressive agenda on the FAST TRACK. He in essence ruled that any tax , even a tax for not buying is legal . He opened the door to a Pandora's box IMHO. With his ruling personal liberty just got machined gunned at close range! Go ahead postulate all the silver linings that you care to dream up but the reality is that he executed judicial activism when simple justice was called for and right! He set precedent that now , we citizens have no choice to buy or not , because the government can tax us either way! Just imagine what our founders would have said about that! And this guy will be there for decades assuming his health holds out. These infiltrators often come to light when they stab in the back and set forth extremely disasterious consequences. Had he rightly and simply struck down the law because it failed Constitutional muster, the burden would be on obama, the socialists to attempt to ram it down our throats again thus having to climb a very dangerous and tall mountain. He preferred making the citizens and their representatives spend great effort, wealth and time to now overcome that which could have been placed back on its corrupt creators thus making us climb that damn mountain! Dont give me that ffing shat about his good intentions! I didnt fall off a turnip truck heading to market yesterday! Even should they prove to actually be truly his "good intentions" , I remind everybody reading this post that the road to hell is paved with "good intentions" and Roberts saw fit to make us have to walk back from that road with a heavy burden on our shoulders and shoeless in the wintertime!
Post is all my damn words , every damn one of them, so no damn link required for these words !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! :salute:--Tyr
the link provided above just helps illustrate the correctness of my words here below..


I honestly would love to totally agree with your assessment above. But that would make me my own, worst hypocrite in many ways.
I am still trying to convince myself that Roberts was actually being rather selfish, and Un-Judicial in his decision. Selfish in that he felt a need to prove Obama, and the Dems wrong about Him, and the other Conservative leaning judges...being dedicated to obvious political, rather than constitutional thinking, and actions.
Of course. I will admit. I am probably wrong in my thinking on this. But. That's how I feel.
Somewhere, deep inside me. I have a genuine feeling that Roberts was playing his best hand by making Obama, and the Dems THINK...he took their side in his decision. But. In doing so. I also see how he managed to CORNER them...5 months before the election...with TAXES that Obama and the Dems have been PROMISING, and SWEARING...were not taxes when it came to Obamacare.
Look at how the Repubs, and Romney are handling this. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, and her gang of PROVEN IDIOTS...like Johnson...the guy who warned the People of GUAM...their Island may tip into the Ocean if too many more people arrive.
That is the HEIGHT of the Education Levels of Democrats in Congress.
Or, you could just think of the mentality of someone like Cynthia McKinney....Life On Mars, between her ears.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I honestly would love to totally agree with your assessment above. But that would make me my own, worst hypocrite in many ways.
I am still trying to convince myself that Roberts was actually being rather selfish, and Un-Judicial in his decision. Selfish in that he felt a need to prove Obama, and the Dems wrong about Him, and the other Conservative leaning judges...being dedicated to obvious political, rather than constitutional thinking, and actions.
Of course. I will admit. I am probably wrong in my thinking on this. But. That's how I feel.
Somewhere, deep inside me. I have a genuine feeling that Roberts was playing his best hand by making Obama, and the Dems THINK...he took their side in his decision. But. In doing so. I also see how he managed to CORNER them...5 months before the election...with TAXES that Obama and the Dems have been PROMISING, and SWEARING...were not taxes when it came to Obamacare.
Look at how the Repubs, and Romney are handling this. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, and her gang of PROVEN IDIOTS...like Johnson...the guy who warned the People of GUAM...their Island may tip into the Ocean if too many more people arrive.
That is the HEIGHT of the Education Levels of Democrats in Congress.
Or, you could just think of the mentality of someone like Cynthia McKinney....Life On Mars, between her ears.

My friend, the reality is what he did! Not what he may have intended or hopes will happen. What he did was place an even greater heavy burden back onto the citizens and their representatives to undo an Unconstitutional bill by repealing it! He did so by twisting and contorting words to rationalise not delivering easy simple justice, which was his task, his damn job! It comes down to this ,the heavy burden got tossed onto the wrong side. Thats pandering and even worse when one considers the power it also gave the ffing little dictator that is currently infesting the Whitehouse! Even if he did do so to hurt obama ,its wrong and ill advised because he is sworn to uphold the Constitution not be an activist judge for either side. My guess is he either sold out due to threats or due to his desire to be popular with socialist scum/vermin.. Regardless, I repeat , ff him!
That is certainly no disrespect aimed at you my friend but is my honest opinion on the subject and I appreciate that you stand with your convictions..-Tyr

[Kathianne]

I honestly would love to totally agree with your assessment above. But that would make me my own, worst hypocrite in many ways.
I am still trying to convince myself that Roberts was actually being rather selfish, and Un-Judicial in his decision. Selfish in that he felt a need to prove Obama, and the Dems wrong about Him, and the other Conservative leaning judges...being dedicated to obvious political, rather than constitutional thinking, and actions.
Of course. I will admit. I am probably wrong in my thinking on this. But. That's how I feel.
Somewhere, deep inside me. I have a genuine feeling that Roberts was playing his best hand by making Obama, and the Dems THINK...he took their side in his decision. But. In doing so. I also see how he managed to CORNER them...5 months before the election...with TAXES that Obama and the Dems have been PROMISING, and SWEARING...were not taxes when it came to Obamacare.
Look at how the Repubs, and Romney are handling this. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, and her gang of PROVEN IDIOTS...like Johnson...the guy who warned the People of GUAM...their Island may tip into the Ocean if too many more people arrive.
That is the HEIGHT of the Education Levels of Democrats in Congress.
Or, you could just think of the mentality of someone like Cynthia McKinney....Life On Mars, between her ears.

I'm pretty much in agreement with your 'feelings.' In fact it does seem that he's led the way to putting some restrictions on the Commerce Clause and Necessary & Proper Clause. One can tell that Obamacare as a taxing venue is like an albatross to the Democrats right now. In fact, less than 24 hours after the ruling, the WH once again claimed it wasn't a tax. LOL! As if anyone missed the thrust of the SCOTUS ruling.

There's little doubt that people are very angry, (http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-conservative-anger-growing-over-obamacare-decision/article/2501068) which does not bode well for Obama or anyone that voted for or defended this monstrosity, including Roberts. Indeed, it seems that if Roberts' plan was to make the SCOTUS look better to the public, so far he's failed. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_update)

On the other hand, there's this story today, which may indeed be an argument that both of us are wrong:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/


July 1, 2012 1:29 PM

Roberts switched views to uphold health care lawBy Jan Crawford

<!-- Story Strip --> <script type="text/JavaScript"> <!-- var cbsiAd2_100 = { 'SP' : '2', 'POS' : '100', 'REFRESH' : '1' }; cbsiSetupAdDiv("cbsiAd2_100", cbsiAd2_100); cbsiGetDeferredAds(["cbsiAd2_100"]); //--> </script>
<iframe src="http://www.cbsnews.com/html/Ads/common/MantaRay4_5Local_cbsnews.html" class="adFrame" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" hspace="0" vspace="0" allowtransparency="true" background-color="transparent" frameborder="0" height="1" scrolling="no" width="1"></iframe>


July 1, 2012 1:29 PM



Roberts switched views to uphold health care law
<dl class="storyBlogByline"><dt class="storyBlogBy">By Jan Crawford
</dt></dl>



<!-- 2 -->
(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.


Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.


"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."


But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."


The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.


Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.


The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The Court's private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members - no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential.


But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts' unusual shift has spread widely within the Court, and is known among law clerks, chambers' aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.


After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued - severability and the Medicaid extension - but the mandate was the ballgame...


<dl class="storyBlogByline"><dd>
</dd></dl>

This actually makes some sense, as Kennedy is at heart a libertarian and is 'all about liberty' in his decisions. It's why he swings between both sides, it's about how he views each decision on liberty.

[Little-Acorn]

Normal procedure is for the Supreme Court, if they found a bill to be unconstitutional as written, to write out an opinion saying what part(s) were unconstitutional why, and to remand it back to Congress.

Essentially they would say, "Here's what's wrong. You should change these things, and then try voting on it and passing it again."

But they didn't do that this time. For some reason, the Court said, "We'll treat it as though you already made the changes, re-voted, and passed it; and so now we'll declare it constitutional."

My question is:

If Congress had gotten the bill back with instructions that the "penalty" had to be changed to a "tax", then would the House have passed it, once it was honestly written to be a "tax"? Would the Senate have passed it?

IIRC, many House and Senate members who did vote for it, had declared stridently that they would never vote YES if it contained taxes.

[Mr. P]

I honestly would love to totally agree with your assessment above. But that would make me my own, worst hypocrite in many ways.
I am still trying to convince myself that Roberts was actually being rather selfish, and Un-Judicial in his decision. Selfish in that he felt a need to prove Obama, and the Dems wrong about Him, and the other Conservative leaning judges...being dedicated to obvious political, rather than constitutional thinking, and actions.
Of course. I will admit. I am probably wrong in my thinking on this. But. That's how I feel.
Somewhere, deep inside me. I have a genuine feeling that Roberts was playing his best hand by making Obama, and the Dems THINK...he took their side in his decision. But. In doing so. I also see how he managed to CORNER them...5 months before the election...with TAXES that Obama and the Dems have been PROMISING, and SWEARING...were not taxes when it came to Obamacare.
Look at how the Repubs, and Romney are handling this. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, and her gang of PROVEN IDIOTS...like Johnson...the guy who warned the People of GUAM...their Island may tip into the Ocean if too many more people arrive.
That is the HEIGHT of the Education Levels of Democrats in Congress.
Or, you could just think of the mentality of someone like Cynthia McKinney....Life On Mars, between her ears.

On Johnson and his idiocy....

Unfortunately, I lived in Johnson's district until a bit over a yr ago, I still receive his e-newsletters...this one on Fri.

Just the first part reveals how dumb this guy still IS.


Dear Friends,

After more than a century of debate, the American people won a historic victory yesterday when the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act.

Sadly, THIS is the intellectual caliber of many of the folks running the Country. Most, IMO, being in the Democratic Party.

Of course I may be wrong, but I don't think the Affordable Care Act debate has been ongoing for more than 100 yrs!

I'm also not afraid Guam might capsize if we add 8000 more Marines.

What a BUFFOON!

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bs23CjIWMgA" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[aboutime]

On Johnson and his idiocy....

Unfortunately, I lived in Johnson's district until a bit over a yr ago, I still receive his e-newsletters...this one on Fri.

Just the first part reveals how dumb this guy still IS.



Sadly, THIS is the intellectual caliber of many of the folks running the Country. Most, IMO, being in the Democratic Party.

Of course I may be wrong, but I don't think the Affordable Care Act debate has been ongoing for more than 100 yrs!

I'm also not afraid Guam might capsize if we add 8000 more Marines.

What a BUFFOON!

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bs23CjIWMgA" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

So. You should really consider yourself so lucky, not being in his district anymore.
Of course. That letter was obviously addressed to (EXcuse the laughter here) those people who THINK, and ACT just like Johnson in every way.
Bet, not one of them managed to catch, or understand that remark about 100 years.
He'd be better off telling them to Buy Liferafts, and mount them on the roof of their garage, just in case they get a Leaky Faucet.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/304507/jan-crawford-sources-confirm-chief-justice-roberts-flipped-carrie-severino

Roberts broke to pressure applied , just as I had suspected. History will eventually settle on this truth. For 20 year this unprincipled scumwill head the court! No wonder liberals/dems/leftists/socialists are celebrating!-Tyr

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304442/constitutional-contortions-mark-steyn

[avatar4321]

They did, apparently its constitutional.

Yet the decision is illogical and we have to jump threw hoops the reach it.

It's not constitutional under the commerce clause, but because it's a tax despite the fact that at the beginning of this ruling we ruled it wasnt a tax so the anti-injunction act didnt apply and completely take away our jurisdiction over the case.

And what the heck does it matter if it's unconstitutional under the commerce clause if they can just rename it a tax and they can now do whatever they want.

You realize they now have the power to tax our failure to behave the way they want? If they want us all to buy guns, they can tax us for failing to do that. If they want us to buy ipods and line rich donor's pockets, they can tax us for not purchasing their goods and services. They can tax us for not buying their piece of crap book.

These are now all perfectly legal. On what planet is this a good thing? What's the purpose of the Constitution if it doesnt actually limit any power they have?

[avatar4321]

My biggest care in this decision isn't necessarily Obamacare. Im confident we can repeal it. Especially since it's a tax now and we can avoid the fillibuster to repeal it.

My biggest problem with this decision is that it's a horrible precedent and essentailly authorizes the Federal Government to do whatever it wants.

[logroller]

Yet the decision is illogical and we have to jump threw hoops the reach it.

It's not constitutional under the commerce clause, but because it's a tax despite the fact that at the beginning of this ruling we ruled it wasnt a tax so the anti-injunction act didnt apply and completely take away our jurisdiction over the case.

And what the heck does it matter if it's unconstitutional under the commerce clause if they can just rename it a tax and they can now do whatever they want.

You realize they now have the power to tax our failure to behave the way they want? If they want us all to buy guns, they can tax us for failing to do that. If they want us to buy ipods and line rich donor's pockets, they can tax us for not purchasing their goods and services. They can tax us for not buying their piece of crap book.

These are now all perfectly legal. On what planet is this a good thing? What's the purpose of the Constitution if it doesnt actually limit any power they have?
what you say makes a lot of sense. I've struggled to make sense of it, but here goes it.
The antiinjuction act was meant to prevent courts from disallowing Congress to raise revenues. The PPACA, however, was not meant to raise revenues, but rather to discourage certain activities (or in this case, inactivity). I believe this stems from the understanding that taxes serve varied purposes, and the antiinjuction act applied only to revenue generation.

[avatar4321]

what you say makes a lot of sense. I've struggled to make sense of it, but here goes it.
The antiinjuction act was meant to prevent courts from disallowing Congress to raise revenues. The PPACA, however, was not meant to raise revenues, but rather to discourage certain activities (or in this case, inactivity). I believe this stems from the understanding that taxes serve varied purposes, and the antiinjuction act applied only to revenue generation.

I didnt see any of that in the decision. I saw him trying to justify it by the fact that Congress didnt call it a tax and limit that finding for the purpose of reviewing the AIA only.

Granted I may have read it wrong. Regardless, I dont by the logic. It's either a tax or it's not.

[fj1200]

Sure it is, he knew it was constitutional but wasn't going to be bullied by rtwing nutjobs.

Then why, if true, did he switch sides? Seems he may have been bullied by LW nutjobs which would call into question your opinion unless your opinion is solely determined by whether he agrees with you or not.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

NICE GOING SCOTUS, ITS NOT A TAX SO THAT SCOTUS CAN HEAR/RULE ON THE CASE. IT IS A TAX SO THAT SCOTUS CAN SAVE THE BILL! I guess taxing for doing something and then taxing for not doing the same thing makes sense given the previous bullshat logic they applied. Here we had 4 judges stand firmly with the Constitution! Then we had 4 leftist/ liberal/socialist judges stand firmly against the Constitution. Next came Roberts and what did he do? He went with the leftist/liberal scum and blew a hole in the Constitution the size of a football. Now people on our side look for a silver lining in that dark cloud. HERE IS A HINT , THERE IS NONE! Only possible silver lining is if Roberts drops dead from a heart attack! Otherwise this sell out scum heads the Supreme Court for 20 years! Not only did he uphold obama's "monster" he added "unlimited" taxing power to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! ACCORDING TO THIS BOY WONDER CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT CAN NOW PASS ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILL AND HAVE IT BULLET PROOF AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES BY SIMPLY ADDING A TAX IN IT!

Freaking Boston tea be damned! Roberts says endless taxes is the way to go!--Tyr

[fj1200]

Freaking Boston tea be damned! Roberts says endless taxes is the way to go!--Tyr

I believe he said that Congress has taxing power and also that the people are able to vote on who their representatives are.