Treason or not??? [Archive] - Debate Policy

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-06-2012, 06:05 PM

Treason or not, that is the question concerning the recent SCOTUS ruling on obamacare.
I am not alone in thinking this...-Tyr

UPDATE: Supreme Court Commits Treason!!!!
With the United States Supreme Court poised to make their decision on Obamacare just hours away now (if you are reading this on Thursday, June 28 2012) there isn’t a single political pundit who has not yet weighed in with their thoughts on how the court will render its verdict. Include Robert Reich (or Reichhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh for you Rush-a-bes out there) in that un-chlorinated cesspool of disease and squalor, rabidly infectious with misinformation and lies, called the MSM. Reich is of the opinion the court will side WITH Obamacare, and he lays out several reasons why, all of which are both bogus and garbage. But one thought he has laid out is absolutely treasonous, and for that, he ought to be fully excoriated and drummed out of America permanently.

What did Reich say that was treasonous?

Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle.”

Yikes! Did Reich really say he hopes the Supreme Court will abandon its sworn duty to uphold, even acknowledge, the Constitution and decide in favor of Obamacare anyway (despite the fact that it is un-Constitutional) because if they don’t, the people might look upon them unfavorably?

Indeed, that’s exactly what Reich said. And, to a degree, we can understand exactly where Reich is coming from – the MSM media, that is, which is more unpopular right now than it has ever been. Never mind the actual quality of news content, it’s rating, ratings ratings! So it must be all about ratings with the Supreme Court too, says Reich, and the Constitution be damned.

Reich thinks SCOTUS will be swayed by the few people in America who want Obamacare upheld in its entirety. That may very well be true will Ginsberg, Kagan and sotomayor, all of whom are very liberal Justices, and judicial activists, and support looking outside the Constitutional, and even looking outside of American law altogether to what other countries are doing. And while it is un-Constitutional for Supreme Court Judges to do that – that still doesn’t stop them.

The Supreme Court can’t afford to lose public trust. It has no ability to impose its will on the other two branches of government.”

Robert Reich, like everyone else in the lame-stream media wants the Supreme Court to take its marching orders from them, rather than what is actually written in the Constitution with regards to the powers vested to the Supreme Court. What Reich won’t ever acknowledge, because it goes against liberal ideology and principal, is that the Supreme Court is not set up in the same way as say American Idol, the X factor, America’s Got Talent, etc., In other words, the Supreme Court is not a popularity contest, and it is not about acquiring the most, and highest, positive ratings. The Supreme Court neither makes laws, nor does it decide laws based on how many people’s feelings will be hurt. The Supreme Court was set up to ensure the Constitution was at all times upheld. Period!

It doesn’t matter that a significant portion of the public may not like Obamacare. The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation. Indeed, what better way to show the Court’s impartiality than to affirm the constitutionality of legislation that may be unpopular but is within the authority of the other two branches to enact?

Reich is absolutely correct when he says “The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation”. What is strange and confounding and damning is that the legislation in question is un-Constitutional, and Reich doesn’t seem to give a damn about that. Or, to put it another way, how is siding with Obamacare, specifically the mandate that every American buy health insurance or face steep fines and penalties, upholding the Constitution?

As conservatives, and as Americans, we fully expect Obamacare to be struck down. We also expect at least two Supreme Court Justices will side with Obamacare. And for any Supreme Court Justice to side with a law that is blatantly and patently un-Constituitonal, that is, and must be, an impeachable offense. It no secret liberals want Scalia thrown out. Why shouldn’t we, as conservatives, demand tyrants that refuse to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution be dismissed, on their own power or ours?

Obamacare is an absolute mess, filled with new laws and powers bestowed upon government, granting it an extension of authority it was never designed to have, but which will have to be funded either through higher taxes on all of us, or through printing more and more money and tacking that expense onto the national debt . We probably still don’t know every last disastrous detail. Remember, we had to sign the bill into law first, before we could read it? Remember who said that?

Is it really worth committing treason to uphold Obamacare? We already know the purpose of Obamacare was not to ensure the health of all, or any, Americans. Obamacare was set up specifically and directly to grow the size, the scope and the power of government, and to force us all to be that much more dependent on government and to become that much less independent for ourselves. It’s un-Constitutional and its treasonous. We’ll soon find out how many justices have committed treason shortly. How stupid do we have to be to not see just how dangerous Obamacare is to America and to all of us? As stupid as Robert Reich?
UPDATE: Supreme Court Commits Treason!!!!With the United States Supreme Court poised to make their decision on Obamacare just hours away now (if you are reading this on Thursday, June 28 2012) there isn’t a single political pundit who has not yet weighed in with their thoughts on how the court will render its verdict. Include Robert Reich (or Reichhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh for you Rush-a-bes out there) in that un-chlorinated cesspool of disease and squalor, rabidly infectious with misinformation and lies, called the MSM. Reich is of the opinion the court will side WITH Obamacare, and he lays out several reasons why, all of which are both bogus and garbage. But one thought he has laid out is absolutely treasonous, and for that, he ought to be fully excoriated and drummed out of America permanently.What did Reich say that was treasonous?Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle.”Yikes! Did Reich really say he hopes the Supreme Court will abandon its sworn duty to uphold, even acknowledge, the Constitution and decide in favor of Obamacare anyway (despite the fact that it is un-Constitutional) because if they don’t, the people might look upon them unfavorably?Indeed, that’s exactly what Reich said. And, to a degree, we can understand exactly where Reich is coming from – the MSM media, that is, which is more unpopular right now than it has ever been. Never mind the actual quality of news content, it’s rating, ratings ratings! So it must be all about ratings with the Supreme Court too, says Reich, and the Constitution be damned.Reich thinks SCOTUS will be swayed by the few people in America who want Obamacare upheld in its entirety. That may very well be true will Ginsberg, Kagan and sotomayor, all of whom are very liberal Justices, and judicial activists, and support looking outside the Constitutional.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-06-2012, 06:30 PM

http://neosecularist.com/2012/06/28/robert-reich-wants-scotus-to-commit-treason-its-what-he-would-do-anyway/

Sorry here is the thread link from previous post..

aboutime

07-06-2012, 07:27 PM

I'm honestly having a very hard time with this.

This, from the Constitution:

What Constitutes Treason?The United States Constitution defines treason as, and with, the following parameters:

Waging war against the federal or state governments of the United States of America
Joining with enemies of the United States of America
Offering the enemies of the United States of America assistance
Two witnesses must verify treasonous acts or conspiracy

The death penalty is the common punishment given to those convicted of treason. Congress is given the power to additionally confiscate the property of anyone committed of treason, but this confiscation reverts to inheritance after the person's execution.

Help me see what you are seeing with this accusation of Treason. Please?

Anton Chigurh

07-06-2012, 07:34 PM

Nonsense. Roberts ruled correctly based on the Constitution and the law. He bought the Obama solicitor's argument that the mandate "penalty" is a TAX. Therefore it is constitutional. Period.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-06-2012, 07:54 PM

Nonsense. Roberts ruled correctly based on the Constitution and the law. He bought the Obama solicitor's argument that the mandate "penalty" is a TAX. Therefore it is constitutional. Period.

A big flip flop by Roberts, eh?-- [B] Tyr
1A http://www.redstate.com/andrewhyman/2012/07/02/why-i-disagree-with-the-obamacare-decision/

Incidentally, Judge Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit supported dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and so did the Fourth Circuit. That route would have also served another principle of statutory construction: avoiding constitutional rulings.

UPDATE (July 4): John Hinderaker over at Powerline has a good post documenting that Democratic members of Congress maintained that the Tax Clause helped justify the individual mandate penalty. But even assuming (as C.J. Roberts does) that Congress suggested the opposite, there’s a big difference between suggesting that the penalty is not a tax, versus amending the Anti-Injunction Act.

Did the Congress that enacted the Anti-Injunction Act mean for the word “tax” to include all payments pursuant to the Tax Clause of the Constitution, except where a later Congress incorrectly suggests that the payment is not pursuant to the Tax Clause of the Constitution? Or except where a later Congress chooses to use a label other than the word “tax”? I disagree with those exceptions, but it’s a close question, and the Chief Justice’s conclusion is not blatantly wrong like a lot of other SCOTUS decisions have been.

Four other highly respected SCOTUS judges disagree with your "nonsense " declaration!!!!--Tyr

2A http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-26/obamacare-day-1-taxes-penalties-and-health-reform

sweek
Politics & Policy
Global Economics
Big Coal's Hard Road to ChinaGreen groups are blocking plans to ship from Washington state
Global Economics The Price of Too Big to FailRangoon's Mix of Colonial and ModernHow Much Is Agriculture Affected by U.S. Weather?The IMF Suggests a Mortgage FixRecent Now Wall Street Doesn't Want Your Money?June Jobs: Five Things You Need to KnowObama to China: Dump the Car TariffsThe Wealth Gap and Upward MobilityChina's Surprise Rate CutSections AfricaChinaCurrent Events CalendarEmerging MarketsEnergyEuropeGlobal EconomicsIndiaLatin AmericaBlog: EconochatCompanies & Industries
NBC Sports Network's Olympic AmbitionsThe rebranded cable channel takes on ESPN and CBS Sports Network
Companies & Industries In Vietnam, P&G Woos Hearts, Minds, and SchoolsPorsche Has an Identity Crisis Amid Its SUV SuccessGM, Ford, Chrysler Top June Auto Sales ExpectationsDeere's Big Green Profit MachineRecent The Imitator's Edge Fear of FlyingWhat's in Your Digital Wallet?Obama to China: Dump the Car TariffsMarketers Take Mobile Ads for a Test DriveSections AutosCompany ResearchEnergyExecutive ResearchHealth CareJob SearchManagementManufacturingTelecommunicationsTra nsportationBlog: The Management BlogPolitics & Policy
Why Mitt Romney Won't Take a StandTo the GOP nominee, risk avoidance is more than just a campaign strategy. It's how he made his fortune
Politics & Policy Investors Watch Fed Discussions for QE HintsPayrolls Rise 80,000 in June as Jobless Rate HoldsNo Judicial Inquiry into Libor ScandalThe Case for Way More MandatesRecent Will 'Living Wills' Prevent the Next Meltdown?The Make-Believe Debate Over Health CareWhy Mitt Romney Won't Take a StandJune Jobs: Five Things You Need to KnowAccelerators Try to Get Startups to Stick AroundSections 2012 CampaignCongressCourtsLegislationWhite HouseBlog: Joshua Green on PoliticsTechnology
HTC Profit Hammered as Rivals Grab Further Market ShareHTC's slide in the smartphone market has been steep, as shown by another weak earnings report
Technology Shazam's TV StrategyIn Apple, Nintendo's New Console Faces a Powerful FoeApple Plans Smaller iPad to Compete with Google TabletCEO Guide to Mobile Advertising and MarketingRecent The Amazon Smartphone Launches Tech's Costliest War Wimpy Cores Are Coming to Facebook. But Whose Cores?In Silicon Valley, Hardware Is Hot AgainMarketers Take Mobile Ads for a Test DriveJust Shazam ItSections AppleApps & SoftwareCEO Tech GuideConsumer ElectronicsFacebookGoogleMobile & TelecomPersonal TechnologyScience & ResearchSocial MediaMarkets & Finance
Will 'Living Wills' Prevent the Next Meltdown?Banks provide plans for their own funerals—in a theoretical world
Markets & Finance The IMF Suggests a Mortgage FixGoldman Halts Investment in European Money FundMarkets Are Down After June Jobs ReportChina's Latest Interest Rate Cut Not WarrantedRecent Now Wall Street Doesn't Want Your Money?June Jobs: Five Things You Need to KnowObama to China: Dump the Car TariffsA Stock Market Rally Invisible to ManyChina's Surprise Rate CutSections BanksCommoditiesCurrenciesHedge FundsInvestingMutual Funds & ETFsPrivate EquityReal EstateRegulationStocks & BondsWall StreetInnovation
The Imitator's EdgeBusiness is the only field still clinging to the notion that imitation is a low level, primitive activity—while innovation is respectable
Innovation The Amazon Smartphone Launches Tech's Costliest WarJust Shazam ItThe 'Portlandia' Bump: Oregon's Thriving Film SceneMarketers Take Mobile Ads for a Test DriveRecent Zack Parisa's Forest Inventory SoftwareGoogle’s Nexus 7: It's Here to Snuff Kindle's FireThe Lucrative Business of Fake, Life-Size DinosaursWanted: Apps to Manage Your MoneyBefore IPhone and Android Came Simon, the First SmartphoneSections CopyrightFix This/Health CareInnovatorsPatentsPrivacyReinventing BusinessTrademarksLifestyle
Bahnhof's Office BunkerWhat is part Bond-villain lair, part Space Age greenhouse? The subterranean headquarters of Swedish broadband company Bahnhof
Lifestyle Book Excerpt: 'Octopus,' by Guy LawsonThe Sofi Awards, the Oscars of Artisanal FoodsEike Batista's Hair ApparentKay Koplovitz on Dealmaking for USA NetworkRecent How David Einhorn Was Out-Bluffed at the Poker TableThe 'Portlandia' Bump: Oregon's Thriving Film SceneOffice Upgrade: The Magneto LampBunker DownJust Shazam ItSections BooksFashionFood & DrinkGadgets & AccessoriesHard ChoicesTravelWorkplaceBusiness Schools
How I Got Here: General Mills' Anton VincentThe brand manager has come a long way since his student days at Kelley. Here's how Vincent climbed the corporate ladder, in his own words
Business Schools To Fund Your MBA, Borrow From AlumsMBA Startups Find Alumni Angels With Money to BurnBootstrap CEOsMBA Pay: Peering Into the FutureRecent Employers Warm Up to Online MBAs How I Got Here: General Mills' Anton VincentMBA Alumni in the News: July 5Résumé Update: Taking Stock of Your Summer InternshipMBA Journal: Busy SeasonSections B-School CalendarCompare B-SchoolsFinancial AidFinding a JobForumsMBA AdmissionsRankings & ProfilesUndergrad ProgramsBlog: Getting InBlog: Business School ExplainedSmall Business
Accelerators Try to Get Startups to Stick AroundFrom Cincinnati to Fayetteville, cities are betting that accelerators can breed high-growth companies. But will the entrepreneurs then stay?
Small Business Can You Really Learn to Cook Professionally Online?The Translation Industry Interprets 'Recession-Proof'Remaking the Family FarmFrom Bed Bugs to Mini-Brownies, Businesses Adapt to ChangeRecent The 'Portlandia' Bump: Oregon's Thriving Film SceneWorker Shortage? Teach Teens Manufacturing SkillsJust Shazam ItZack Parisa's Forest Inventory SoftwareDavid Kalt, Guitar HeroSections AdviceCommentaryFinancingLegal DocumentsPolicyProfilesBlog: The New EntrepreneurVideo & Multimedia
Slideshows Bunker Down Social Media Misfires Stand-Up Desks: 10 Options Reviewed Five Workplace Dramas As Yet Unscripted by Aaron SorkinPhoto Essays The Wealth Gap and Upward Mobility Rangoon's Mix of Colonial and ModernCharts Just Shazam It Germany's Economy Catches the Euro FluVideos Analyzing the ECB News Conference No Judicial Inquiry into Libor Scandal Obama Expands Trade Disputes With China The Scary $3B Bomb Not on Netflix's Balance Sheet
Photograph by Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo

Protesters outside the Supreme Court on Monday March 26, 2012

Health Care and the Court
Obamacare, Day 1: 'Taxes,' 'Penalties,' and Health Reform
By Paul M. Barrett on March 26, 2012 Tweet
Facebook
LinkedIn
Google Plus
8 Comments Email
Print
Related
Video Supreme Court Hears Health-Law Arguments (Day 1)
Blog How Liberals Would React to a Health-Care Defeat
Story Why Obamacare Will Survive Court Politics
Story The Obama Campaign Dares Supporters to 'Say It: I Like Obamacare'
Story Obamacare Has Already Transformed U.S. Health Care
Video How Much for a Supreme Court View?
Story Mandatory Health Insurance: The Case For, and Against
Story Even Reluctant States Design Health Insurance Exchanges
Special Report
Special Coverage: Obamacare Before the BenchThe Supreme Court May Give Mitt Romney a $780,000 Tax CutLobbyists Predict Obama's Defeat Over Health Law3/29: Toobin on Health-Care Reform LawHealth-Care Law to Be Upheld, De La Torre SaysSupreme Court Justices Own Words on Health CareObama's Health Care Law Seen in JeopardySupreme Court Hears Arguments on Health Law CoreSupreme Court Showdown Over Individual MandateOmstead, Kiernan on Supreme Court Health Law ReviewSupreme Court Hears Health Suit Viability DebateHealth-Care Debate Brings Crowds to Supreme Court'The Swamp': Home of the Supreme Court ProtestorWhat the Supreme Court Could Do to ObamaEleven Alternatives to Obamacare's Individual MandateHealth Law Seen in Jeopardy After Justices' QuestionsObamacare, Day 3: The Toobin FactorObamacare, Day 2: Regulation or Tyranny?How Liberals Would React to a Health-Care DefeatThe Obama Campaign Dares Supporters to 'Say It: I Like Obamacare'Mandatory Health Insurance: The Case For, and AgainstWhy Obamacare Will Survive Court PoliticsHealth Care Act at the Supreme CourtD.C.'s Hottest Ticket: The Supreme Court Health-Care CaseOne thing appears to have been resolved on the first of three days of argument over the fate of Obamacare: The Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 will not spoil the fun.

In the five-alarm, all-hands-on-deck build-up to this week’s oral arguments in the constitutional challenge to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, some legal cards suggested that the justices might toss the case because the obscure 19th century anti-injunction provision would bar a decision on the merits. UCLA Law School’s Adam Winkler provided a surprisingly understandable guide to this baffling legal cul de sac.

Fear not. If the banter from the bench Monday at the high court meant anything—and sometimes the justices diabolically send confusing messages while toying with lawyers before them—it seemed to indicate that we’ll get a substantive ruling, and we’ll get it this year.

Briefly—very briefly, because it’s going to be irrelevant—the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 blocks lawsuits over taxes that haven’t been imposed yet. The justices themselves had posed the semantic-cum-procedural question of whether the health-care law’s central provision, which requires that Americans either get insurance or pay a penalty, could be considered a (yet-to-be-imposed) “tax.”

No way, said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “This is not a revenue-raising measure,” she noted, referring to the Affordable Care Act. “If it’s successful, nobody will pay the penalty, and there will be no revenue to raise.”

This falls under the jurisprudential category of “if it don’t quack like a tax, it ain’t a tax.” Justice Stephen Breyer made the pithy observation that Congress “did not use the word ‘tax’” in enacting the health-care law.

So, now we have that out of the way. On Tuesday, the justices are scheduled to turn to the heart of the matter: whether Congress possesses the authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate health care and insurance in the manner dictated by the Affordable Care Act of 2010. On the third day of argument on Wednesday, the justices will ponder what would happen to the rest of the law if the insurance mandate were struck down—and whether the law’s expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor unconstitutionally coerces the states into spending more on health care for those who lack financial means.

So its NOT A TAX in order for the SCOTUS to hear the case and it IS A TAX for the court to uphold the law!-Tyr

Anton Chigurh

07-06-2012, 09:29 PM

Four other highly respected SCOTUS judges disagree with your "nonsense " declaration!!!!They can be partisans now, after the fact. It's perfectly okay. Calling Robert's decision "treason" is nonsense, no matter how many people say it.
So its NOT A TAX in order for the SCOTUS to hear the case and it IS A TAX for the court to uphold the law!To get the case before the SCOTUS required one argument, winning the case before the SCOTUS required another. Happens all the time.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-06-2012, 09:44 PM

gabosaurus

07-06-2012, 11:29 PM

Nonsense. Roberts ruled correctly based on the Constitution and the law. He bought the Obama solicitor's argument that the mandate "penalty" is a TAX. Therefore it is constitutional. Period.

In the viewpoint of conservative Republicans, anything that goes against their ideology is "treason."
Opposing Bush during his war was "treason." But favoring Obama for the same reasons is "treason."

Bush lies to Congress to get them to approve his war is OK. Obama lies to Congress to get them to approve his health care plan is treason.
Bush spending an ungodly amount to promote his bogus "war on terror" is patriotic. Obama proposes spending an ungodly amount of money to promote his bogus health care plan is a threat to our nation.
Depends on which side of the aisle you are sitting on.

jimnyc

07-07-2012, 07:22 AM

In the viewpoint of conservative Republicans, anything that goes against their ideology is "treason."

This board obviously has many conservative republicans, please show us where anything against our ideology has been labeled treason, this thread and one member aside...

Opposing Bush during his war was "treason."

Again, where?

But favoring Obama for the same reasons is "treason."

Put up or shut up, show us where anyone ever said so

Bush lies to Congress to get them to approve his war is OK.

Repeating idiocy doesn't make it any less idiotic.

Obama lies to Congress to get them to approve his health care plan is treason.

Where has anyone called this plan treason?

Bush spending an ungodly amount to promote his bogus "war on terror" is patriotic.

Where has anyone said it was patriotic?

Obama proposes spending an ungodly amount of money to promote his bogus health care plan is a threat to our nation.

This one slightly, I believe many have stated it was bad for our nation, but a threat?

Depends on which side of the aisle you are sitting on.

Making shit up stinks no matter where you sit.

But prove us wrong - http://www.debatepolicy.com/search.php?search_type=1

Search away. So which is it, will you now disappear as usual? Make up stupid shit to deflect?

red states rule

07-07-2012, 08:15 AM

red states rule

07-07-2012, 08:16 AM

This board obviously has many conservative republicans, please show us where anything against our ideology has been labeled treason, this thread and one member aside...

Again, where?

Put up or shut up, show us where anyone ever said so

Repeating idiocy doesn't make it any less idiotic.

Where has anyone called this plan treason?

Where has anyone said it was patriotic?

This one slightly, I believe many have stated it was bad for our nation, but a threat?

Making shit up stinks no matter where you sit.

But prove us wrong - http://www.debatepolicy.com/search.php?search_type=1

Search away. So which is it, will you now disappear as usual? Make up stupid shit to deflect?

Jim did you REALLY expect a response from Ms Civility?

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 08:35 AM

Your honor, I admit that I robbed the bank to get the money, now I admit that I didnt rob the bank so you can set me free!-:laugh2:
Happens all the time. Same judges decide it was not a tax but later to uphold the law one of those judges , Roberts decides that its very convenient for it to suddenly be a tax. So he flips and the American people get screwed! Your logic is greatly lacking but dont worry you have a lot of company.-TyrStraw argument. Logical fallacy.

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 08:36 AM

Depends on which side of the aisle you are sitting on.I don't sit and I'm not on any side.

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 08:37 AM

Not teason, but it was stupidity

It is clear that Roberts was more interested in getting complements from libs like Gabby, and those libs viewed the Court rather then rule according to the US ConstitutionIt is clear to me he merely made the correct ruling and gave us all, Franklin-like advice about elections.

red states rule

07-07-2012, 08:39 AM

It is clear to me he merely made the correct ruling and gave us all, Franklin-like advice about elections.

It was NOT the correct ruling. IF Obamacare is a TAX bill the court should have struck it down since Obamacare was first passed in the Senate and not the House as the US Constitution demands

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 08:41 AM

It was NOT the correct ruling. IF Obamacare is a TAX bill the court should have struck it down since Obamacare was first passed in the Senate and not the House as the US Constitution demandsThat wasn't argued, otherwise it might well have been.

Obama's solicitors argued it was a tax, and the other side didn't dispute that. The fact that the bill originated in the Senate instead of the House isn't grounds for the SCOTUS to consider unless THAT is the claim against it. It never was.

We should keep our eye on the ball and take Robert's advice, and correct this at the voting booth in November.

red states rule

07-07-2012, 08:44 AM

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 08:47 AM

The Court ruled it was a tax.

The grounds for striking it down is the US Constitution states ALL tax bills must begin in the HouseThe SCOTUS does not consider arguments which are not made. That argument wasn't made.

red states rule

07-07-2012, 08:57 AM

The SCOTUS does not consider arguments which are not made. That argument wasn't made.

Bottom line is the 5 Judges IGNORED the US Constitution when it came to how tax bills are to become law

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 09:02 AM

Bottom line is the 5 Judges IGNORED the US Constitution when it came to how tax bills are to become lawThey ignored nothing. It never came up and it is not in their purview to know how a particular bill was crafted and which House it originated in. They are not investigators.

If the opposition had brought that up, saying "Hey, if it is indeed a tax then the whole bill is unconstitutional because all bills dealing with taxes have to originate in the House of Representatives and this one didn't" then yes, it would very likely have been struck down completely.

The lawyers for the opposition didn't argue this, and probably didn't know about it either. It never came up.

Roberts gave the public some good advice about correcting our errors at the voting booth. We should take his advice.

red states rule

07-07-2012, 09:04 AM

They ignored nothing. It never came up and it is not in their purview to know how a particular bill was crafted and which House it originated in. They are not investigators.

If the opposition had brought that up, saying "Hey, if it is indeed a tax then the whole bill is unconstitutional because all bills dealing with taxes have to originate in the House of Representatives and this one didn't" then yes, it would very likely have been struck down completely.

The lawyers for the opposition didn't argue this, and probably didn't know about it either. It never came up.

Roberts gave the public some good advice about correcting our errors at the voting booth. We should take his advice.

Excuse me for expecting the Judges to following the rule book when making decisions.

As I posted before, Roberts was more worried about getting glowing coverage from the likes of Chris Matthews and the NY Times then actually doing his job

But since Obamacare is now a tax bill to repeal it R's only need 51 votes in the US Senate. Dems cannot block it by demanding 60 votes

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 09:10 AM

Straw argument. Logical fallacy.

Bullshit, that is what happened. It was decided to not be a TAX by the court so they could hear the case.
After hearing the case they decided that it was a TAX. This reversal is the reason the law was upheld. They had to get it wrong at least once! That is unless you maintain it is a TAX and isnt a TAX both! Which surely has to be your view according to your accusation of straw argument, logical fallacy. Four other SCOTUS judges say Roberts is wrong, wrong in his ruling and wrong in his flipping. You apparently agree with the 4 leftist judges and a turncoat.
Have at it then but do explain how it IS and ISNT a tax at the same time, the American people would like that explained. While you are at it you may like to explain the Constitutionality of taxing goods and services not purchased! With that new power government can easily pick and choose which businesses survive.
They just place a tax on anybody that is not buying a specific product made by a specific manufacturer.
Unlimited power to tax has never been in our Constitution . The power to tax goods and services purchased has always been there but now the unlimited power to tax goods and services not even purchased has been validated by Roberts ruling. Roberts flipped and millions of informed Americans are wondering why?-Tyr

red states rule

07-07-2012, 09:11 AM

Bullshit, that is what happened. It was decided to not be a TAX by the court so they could hear the case.
After hearing the case they decided that it was a TAX. This reversal is the reason the law was upheld. They had to get it wrong at least once! That is unless you maintain it is a TAX and isnt a TAX both! Which surely has to be your view according to your accusation of straw argument, logical fallacy. Four other SCOTUS judges say Roberts is wrong, wrong in his ruling and wrong in his flipping. You apparently agree with the 4 leftist judges and a turncoat.
Have at it then but do explain how it IS and ISNT a tax at the same time, the American people would like that explained. While you are at it you may like to explain the Constitutionality of taxing goods and services not purchased! With that new power government can easily pick and choose which businesses survive.
They just place a tax on anybody that is not buying a specific product made by a specific manufacturer.
Unlimited power to tax has never been in our Constitution . The power to tax goods and services purchased has always been there but now the unlimited power to tax goods and services not even purchased has been validated by Roberts ruling. Roberts flipped and millions of informed Americans are wondering why?-Tyr

and yet they upheld the tax bill when it was NOT started in the House as the nations Owners Manual demands

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 09:11 AM

red states rule

07-07-2012, 09:14 AM

logroller

07-07-2012, 09:18 AM

Excuse me for expecting the Judges to following the rule book when making decisions.

As I posted before, Roberts was more worried about getting glowing coverage from the likes of Chris Matthews and the NY Times then actually doing his job

But since Obamacare is now a tax bill to repeal it R's only need 51 votes in the US Senate. Dems cannot block it by demanding 60 votes

But they did follow the rule book; they considered the arguments put before them. If you think the court should go out looking for things to rule unconstitutional, then change the rules; but they are bound to consider only those things brought before them.

And posting on Roberts' motives is speculation at best.

red states rule

07-07-2012, 09:23 AM

But they did follow the rule book; they considered the arguments put before them. If you think the court should go out looking for things to rule unconstitutional, then change the rules; but they are bound to consider only those things brought before them.

And posting on Roberts' motives is speculation at best.

Please show me in the US Constitution where tax bills mat start in the US Senate

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 09:34 AM

I'm thanking this post for the simple reason that it's 'factually' correct. It's light years away from treason. However, Obama's solicitor did not argue strongly this was a tax, only as a feeble response to a question from one of the justices. In fact, the justice was going back to reference an argument the government had made in a FL suit.

What Roberts actually did is rewrite the law, through judicial fiat. Yes, he opened the door to more taxing by inaction of the people. It's bad law and the courts will get around to turning it around.

Anton's strongest point though, is also Roberts. The people can change this in November.

Yes, he rewrote the law instead of ruling it Unconstitutional. Either Roberts is an ignorant buffoon or a brilliant man that knew damn well what he was doing by making that ruling was Unconstitutional, when the constitutionality was his only consideration to make about the law. Not if its good by his personal opinion , not if its will cost money if thrown out, not if he will be an outcast for voting it Unconstitutional, etc.
Had he done his duty the law would have been tossed and its supporters could have resubmitted it but no Roberts would rather have the American people take the greater risk of repealing it. Which means they must vote in more conservatives this election to do so! They must win key states etc. in the coming election. All that is very iffy and Roberts could have struck the law and let-IT- be resubmitted instead which by the way was his sworn duty. As it is he put the monkey on our backs not rightly where it belonged on the backs of the lousy people that by hook, crook, bribes and lies crafted this "monster".There is no way round it, Roberts failed to do his duty and gave a win to obama and team! By doing so he Unconstitutionally forced the law to have to be repealed rather than the law to have to be rewritten, resubmitted and vote on again! With his knowledge, his job and his sworn oath that is treason in this man's book. But then again , I do not a have a damn PC bone in my body. Unlike many Americans I havent been taught the fine art of appeasement and as with so many(libs/dems/socalists) the fine art of ass kissing! -Tyr

logroller

07-07-2012, 09:37 AM

Please show me in the US Constitution where tax bills mat start in the US Senate
See here's the thing; you have to show me where the judiciary has the power to actively seek out unconstitutional laws and construe argument to the fact. They can't. Look I understand why you're pissed, but don't toss out reason just because the ruling didn't vindicate your POV.

red states rule

07-07-2012, 09:38 AM

Yes, he rewrote the law instead of ruling it Unconstitutional. Either Roberts is an ignorant buffoon or a brilliant man that knew damn well what he was doing by making that ruling was Unconstitutional, when the constitutionality was his only consideration to make about the law. Not if its good by his personal opinion , not if its will cost money if thrown out, not if he will be an outcast for voting it Unconstitutional, etc.
Had he done his duty the law would have been tossed and its supporters could have resubmitted it but no Roberts would rather have the American people take the greater risk of repealing it. Which means they must vote in more conservatives this election to do so! They must win key states etc. in the coming election. All that is very iffy and Roberts could have struck the law and let-IT- be resubmitted instead which by the way was his sworn duty. As it is he put the monkey on our backs not rightly where it belonged on the backs of the lousy people that by hook, crook, bribes and lies crafted this "monster".There is no way round it, Roberts failed to do his duty and gave a win to obama and team! By doing so he Unconstitutionally forced the law to have to be repealed rather than the law to have to be rewritten, resubmitted and vote on again! With his knowledge, his job and his sworn oath that is treason in this man's book. But then again , I do not a have a damn PC bone in my body. Unlike many Americans I havent been taught the fine art of appeasement and as with so many(libs/dems/socalists) the fine art of ass kissing! -Tyr

Robert's motive - IMO - was to ensure he would not be treated in the liberal media like Justice Thomas or Scalia.

He was a fool like Jiohn McCain was in 2008. McCain sucked up to the liberal media, and was loved when he bucked Pres Bush. However when it came down to him and Obama, McCain fel the many knives being stuck in his back by the likes of Chris Matthews and the NY Times

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 09:39 AM

red states rule

07-07-2012, 09:40 AM

See here's the thing; you have to show me where the judiciary has the power to actively seek out unconstitutional laws and construe argument to the fact. They can't. Look I understand why you're pissed, but don't toss out reason just because the ruling didn't vindicate your POV.

No, the USSC has ruled Obamacare is a TAX bill. I said they could have struck down the law at that oment sicne the bil did not start in the House as the Constitution states

You said they ruled correctly. I am asking if I missed where the US Constitution was changed so tax bills can begin in the Senate

It may new news to the Way and Means committee as well

logroller

07-07-2012, 09:45 AM

Yes, he rewrote the law instead of ruling it Unconstitutional. Either Roberts is an ignorant buffoon or a brilliant man that knew damn well what he was doing by making that ruling was Unconstitutional, when the constitutionality was his only consideration to make about the law. Not if its good by his personal opinion , not if its will cost money if thrown out, not if he will be an outcast for voting it Unconstitutional, etc.
Had he done his duty the law would have been tossed and its supporters could have resubmitted it but no Roberts would rather have the American people take the greater risk of repealing it. Which means they must vote in more conservatives this election to do so! They must win key states etc. in the coming election. All that is very iffy and Roberts could have struck the law and let-IT- be resubmitted instead which by the way was his sworn duty. As it is he put the monkey on our backs not rightly where it belonged on the backs of the lousy people that by hook, crook, bribes and lies crafted this "monster".There is no way round it, Roberts failed to do his duty and gave a win to obama and team! By doing so he Unconstitutionally forced the law to have to be repealed rather than the law to have to be rewritten, resubmitted and vote on again! With his knowledge, his job and his sworn oath that is treason in this man's book. But then again , I do not a have a damn PC bone in my body. Unlike many Americans I havent been taught the fine art of appeasement and as with so many(libs/dems/socalists) the fine art of ass kissing! -Tyr
Please show me the textual changes, the part that was "rewrote", in the law made by this ruling. As to your lack of political correctness, its nearly rivaled by your lack of legal correctness. Too close to call in my book.

red states rule

07-07-2012, 09:53 AM

Folks, here is an example as to why Roberts ruled the way he did

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2012/1101120716_600.jpg

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 09:54 AM

I do not personally approve of his choices. It appears his reasons for stretching the way he did were self-serving, no argument from me.

However they weren't treasonous and were within his purview. I don't think history is going to show him the way he envisioned 10 days ago.

It wasn't unconstitutional either, he had the power, given by the Constitution to rule as he did.

Sorry, but I disagree with that. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution because it safeguards the American people and is the governing document of this nation. He betrayed both for purely selfish reasons. None of the other 4 judges that voted against the law agreed with his ruling or his feeble reasoning to justify such betrayal. History will eventually record this as an epic failure by him and most likely show his compete lack of integrity, honor and duty well performed! With his position, power and oath I view it as treason myself! But then again I understand absolute refusal to maintain one's sworn oath , especially in a case of this magnitude to be far more than just a simple mistake. His reasons given for flipping clearly point to lying IMHO! -Tyr

logroller

07-07-2012, 09:55 AM

No, the USSC has ruled Obamacare is a TAX bill. I said they could have struck down the law at that oment sicne the bil did not start in the House as the Constitution states

You said they ruled correctly. I am asking if I missed where the US Constitution was changed so tax bills can begin in the Senate

It may new news to the Way and Means committee as well
They could have struck it down if it was argued as such; it wasn't, so the court couldn't consider that. It cracks me up people are so hung up on this; it's so easy to blame the messenger when the very people who should have and could have made these arguments failed to do so. Now you're grasping at straws. To illustrate the point, if you were being tried for murder and had evidence supporting an alibi, but failed to present that during trial--is that the judge's fault?

red states rule

07-07-2012, 09:56 AM

Sorry, but I disagree with that. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution because it safeguards the American people and is the governing document of this nation. He betrayed both for purely selfish reasons. None of the other 4 judges that voted against the law agreed with his ruling or his feeble reasoning to justify such betrayal. History will eventually record this as an epic failure by him and most likely show his compete lack of integrity, honor and duty well performed! With his position, power and oath I view it as treason myself! But then again I understand absolute refusal to maintain one's sworn oath , especially in a case of this magnitude to be far more than just a simple mistake. His reasons given for flipping clearly point to lying IMHO! -Tyr

So did the other 4 Judges that ruled with him

All Roberts cared about was his legacy and how the Obama re-election team would cover him after the decision

Obama himself issued threats toward the Court in public

He caved

red states rule

07-07-2012, 09:58 AM

They could have struck it down if it was argued as such; it wasn't, so the court couldn't consider that. It cracks me up people are so hung up on this; it's so easy to blame the messenger when the very people who should have and could have made these arguments failed to do so. Now you're grasping at straws. To illustrate the point, if you were being tried for murder and had evidence supporting an alibi, but failed to present that during trial--is that the judge's fault?

I am not surprised it "cracks" you up that I am so concerned over the US Constitution LR.

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 09:58 AM

Sorry, but I disagree with that. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution because it safeguards the American people and is the governing document of this nation. He betrayed both for purely selfish reasons. None of the other 4 judges that voted against the law agreed with his ruling or his feeble reasoning to justify such betrayal. History will eventually record this as an epic failure by him and most likely show his compete lack of integrity, honor and duty well performed! With his position, power and oath I view it as treason myself! But then again I understand absolute refusal to maintain one's sworn oath , especially in a case of this magnitude to be far more than just a simple mistake. His reasons given for flipping clearly point to lying IMHO! -Tyr

Exactly where are you getting the 'unconstitutional?' As for 'treason,' it's actually defined specifically in the Constitution, you do not need to 'define' it.

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 10:00 AM

I am not surprised it "cracks" you up that I am so concerned over the US Constitution LR.

You're misunderstanding and LR is being condescending. The 'burden' is on the litigants, not the justices. They have what they are presented with.

red states rule

07-07-2012, 10:02 AM

You're misunderstanding and LR is being condescending. The 'burden' is on the litigants, not the justices. They have what they are presented with.

Kat I do not get how Roberts can rule Obamacre is unconstitutional under the commerce clause but is OK under the power to tax - whe they knew the bill was first passed in the Senate

They could have struck it down and told Congress to first pass it in the House and then the law would stand

logroller

07-07-2012, 10:08 AM

Robert's motive - IMO - was to ensure he would not be treated in the liberal media like Justice Thomas or Scalia.

He was a fool like Jiohn McCain was in 2008. McCain sucked up to the liberal media, and was loved when he bucked Pres Bush. However when it came down to him and Obama, McCain fel the many knives being stuck in his back by the likes of Chris Matthews and the NY Times

John McCain is an elected politician; thus it makes sense for him to be considerate of his public image. Justices are not answerable to the public; so why would a justice give a rats ass what media says?

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 10:10 AM

Kat I do not get how Roberts can rule Obamacre is unconstitutional under the commerce clause but is OK under the power to tax - whe they knew the bill was first passed in the Senate

They could have struck it down and told Congress to first pass it in the House and then the law would stand

Indeed, but he went another way. He had that right and power. Like I said, I don't have to agree with it, but 'unconstitutional' it wasn't.

logroller

07-07-2012, 10:13 AM

Kat I do not get how Roberts can rule Obamacre is unconstitutional under the commerce clause but is OK under the power to tax - whe they knew the bill was first passed in the Senate

They could have struck it down and told Congress to first pass it in the House and then the law would stand
It doesn't matter what they know; what matters is what they are asked to consider.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 10:15 AM

Exactly where are you getting the 'unconstitutional?' As for 'treason,' it's actually defined specifically in the Constitution, you do not need to 'define' it.

Unconstitutional = from my opinion , research and the other 4 respected SCOTUS JUDGES.
Treason, from my opinion and the truest definition of the word which in my opinion should have listed the willful and deliberate breaking of one's sworn oath of office. I am not a lawyer so the case of treason would be better decided by an attorney bringing charges of his actions, decided by a competent judge rendering a verdict.. Sure it would likely get tossed ....
My friend , Jimmy is an attorney . He has agreed that it's at least treason in "spirit" if nothing else.
I will call it treason, come hell or high water and here is why. In my opinion the man deliberately betrayed the trust placed in him to not only do the right thing but to uphold the Constitution and did so for personal and political reasons. Both of which he sworn NOT TO DO!
I'm not trying him in court , I am making a personal judgement of his actions and betrayal of sworn duty!-Tyr

red states rule

07-07-2012, 10:17 AM

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 10:19 AM

]Unconstitutional = from my opinion , research and the other 4 respected SCOTUS JUDGES.[/B]
Treason, from my opinion and the truest definition of the word which in my opinion should have listed the willful and deliberate breaking of one's sworn oath of office. I am not a lawyer so the case of treason would be better decided by an attorney bringing charges of his actions, decided by a competent judge rendering a verdict.. Sure it would likely get tossed ....
My friend , Jimmy is an attorney . He has agreed that it's at least treason in "spirit" if nothing else.
I will call it treason, come hell or high water and here is why. In my opinion the man deliberately betrayed the trust placed in him to not only do the right thing but to uphold the Constitution and did so for personal and political reasons. Both of which he sworn NOT TO DO!
I'm not trying him in court , I am making a personal judgement of his actions and betrayal of sworn duty!-Tyr

The 4 'other respected justices' were the minority opinion. I personally agree with them, but they lost this one, for now.

You disrespect the definition of treason in the Constitution? I thought you were coming at this as an 'originalist'?

red states rule

07-07-2012, 10:21 AM

It doesn't matter what they know; what matters is what they are asked to consider.

So now it is OK to ignore the Costitution when they make their rulings? I do recall Ginsberg saying she should be allowed to consider foreign law when she makes her decisions

So I guess now they do whatever they want whenever they want

gabosaurus

07-07-2012, 10:23 AM

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 10:24 AM

John McCain is an elected politician; thus it makes sense for him to be considerate of his public image. Justices are not answerable to the public; so why would a justice give a rats ass what media says?

I have to agree with RSR on this one. There's every reason to believe that for whatever reasons, Roberts was influenced by media reports and how he saw that influencing his position and court appearance. That the leaks make this a topic of discussion on a messageboard or in media, I find appalling. It is what it is though.

red states rule

07-07-2012, 10:25 AM

Roberts has always voted with the conservative majority on Supreme Court cases. Dubya appointed him because of his pledge to uphold the Constitution and not be influenced by parties or special interests.
Interesting that Republicans applauded him until he refused to rubber stamp their arguments.
I have never supported Obamacare. I don't agree with the decision. But we have the Supreme Court for a reason.

and Roberts caved after Obama publicly attacked them, and the liberal media promised a savage attack if the Court struck down Obamacare

Rubber stamped? I guess you missed the AZ ruling where the states cannot enact similar Federal laws on the state level

jimnyc

07-07-2012, 10:27 AM

Roberts has always voted with the conservative majority on Supreme Court cases. Dubya appointed him because of his pledge to uphold the Constitution and not be influenced by parties or special interests.
Interesting that Republicans applauded him until he refused to rubber stamp their arguments.
I have never supported Obamacare. I don't agree with the decision. But we have the Supreme Court for a reason.

You can answer my questions on page 1 if you like too, unless of course if you want another reason to be considered a troll. It should be quite easy for you to answer them and link to the prior instances. Thanks!

gabosaurus

07-07-2012, 10:28 AM

and Roberts caved after Obama publicly attacked them, and the liberal media promised a savage attack if the Court struck down Obamacare

Rubber stamped? I guess you missed the AZ ruling where the states cannot enact similar Federal laws on the state level

Read the decision. It was based on legal precedent. The Supreme Court does not answer to the president or the media. Unlike elected officials.

red states rule

07-07-2012, 10:30 AM

Read the decision. It was based on legal precedent. The Supreme Court does not answer to the president or the media. Unlike elected officials.

I did. The ruled Obamacare is not OK under the Commerce Clause but is OK under Congress's power to tax

Roberts changed the rules to appease the liberal media which was ready to destroy him and the court in public

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 10:32 AM

Read the decision. It was based on legal precedent. The Supreme Court does not answer to the president or the media. Unlike elected officials.

I missed the legal precedent part, you got a link?

jimnyc

07-07-2012, 10:32 AM

Yep, had a feeling it would be ignored. Lies are difficult to link to, but easy to make up for some. :rolleyes:

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 10:33 AM

Yep, had a feeling it would be ignored. Lies are difficult to link to, but easy to make up for some. :rolleyes:

Jim, no quote? Acck!

red states rule

07-07-2012, 10:34 AM

I missed the legal precedent part, you got a link?

Kat you must be really bored to be willing to wait for Gabby to actually respond

and Jim for that matter as well :laugh2:

jimnyc

07-07-2012, 10:35 AM

Jim, no quote? Acck!

I asked Gabby to backup her comments on page 1, then she replied later in this thread and ignored it, so I just asked her again. Then she replied in this thread again without acknowledging the questions. Par for the course for her when she is busted making shit up.

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 10:37 AM

I asked Gabby to backup her comments on page 1, then she replied later in this thread and ignored it, so I just asked her again. Then she replied in this thread again without acknowledging the questions. Par for the course for her when she is busted making shit up.

I hate that! I like participating, leaving for work and coming back to pick up where I left off. This stuff?

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 10:38 AM

Kat you must be really bored to be willing to wait for Gabby to actually respond

and Jim for that matter as well :laugh2:

My patience level, even for adults exceeds 20 minutes. Heck, I'll give hours.

logroller

07-07-2012, 10:44 AM

So now it is OK to ignore the Costitution when they make their rulings? I do recall Ginsberg saying she should be allowed to consider foreign law when she makes her decisions

So I guess now they do whatever they want whenever they want

I'm just telling you how the court works; feel free to petition the court to consider the origin of the tax bill.

red states rule

07-07-2012, 10:46 AM

I'm just telling you how the court works; feel free to petition the court to consider the origin of the tax bill.

and I thought Jay Carney was condescending when he gave his press briefings

jimnyc

07-07-2012, 10:47 AM

I'm not happy with the ruling, and I hope the republicans get the WH and a majority in Senate and repeal the tax, but no way is it treason.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 10:55 AM

The 4 'other respected justices' were the minority opinion. I personally agree with them, but they lost this one, for now.

You disrespect the definition of treason in the Constitution? I thought you were coming at this as an 'originalist'?

I am shocked . Since when did disagreeing become adamant disrespect? I think that the legal definition was narrow for a reason. That reason was to limit it in order for it to not so easily be used a political weapon . For were it much broader in scope politicians would level the charge against each other and their opposition often! The founders rightly chose to limit it in order to avoid it being misused. On that I agree. They were inspired and truly brilliant men!
I as a citizen chose to judge Roberts's BETRAYAL AS TREASON in "spirit" even if not in a legal definition of the word.
This I will do despite any costs to me from any quarter or in any manner. I've done so on all the forums I post on.
I care not who disagrees with that. No disrespect and perhaps much stubborness indeed but it is who I am.. -Tyr

logroller

07-07-2012, 10:57 AM

and I thought Jay Carney was condescending when he gave his press briefings

Explain how that was condescending. If i come off as sarcastic its because i e been labeled as artogant, lib, socialist apologist for disagreeing with others of late. You insist on making a point about the tax bill origins; I'm saying the forum for that argument is the court. You needn't convince me of the merits any more than I need to refute them. It's a matter of fact. Those things weren't brought up; hence they couldn't be considered. You don't like it, do something about it; until you do it doesn't detract from the constitutionality of the courts ruling.

logroller

07-07-2012, 11:02 AM

I am shocked . Since when did disagreeing become adamant disrespect? I think that the legal definition was narrow for a reason. That reason was to limit it in order for it to not so easily be used a political weapon . For were it much broader in scope politicians would level the charge against each other and their opposition often! The founders rightly chose to limit it in order to avoid it being misused. On that I agree. They were inspired and truly brilliant men!
I as a citizen chose to judge Roberts's BETRAYAL AS TREASON in "spirit" even if not in a legal definition of the word.
This I will do despite any costs to me from any quarter or in any manner. I've done so on all the forums I post on.
I care not who disagrees with that. No disrespect and perhaps much stubborness indeed but it is who I am.. -Tyr
I read it that way too Tyr. If you didn't mean to imply you didn't respect the other justices represent ing the majority opinion, color me shocked. But I, stubbornly, believe that is your opinion and your shock at such an assumption is farcical.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 11:18 AM

Explain how that was condescending. If i come off as sarcastic its because i e been labeled as artogant, lib, socialist apologist for disagreeing with others of late. You insist on making a point about the tax bill origins; I'm saying the forum for that argument is the court. You needn't convince me of the merits any more than I need to refute them. It's a matter of fact. Those things weren't brought up; hence they couldn't be considered. You don't like it, do something about it; until you do it doesn't detract from the constitutionality of the courts ruling.

The court ruling it constitutional does make it constitutional for now! However its not like the SCOTUS has never had to reverse a ruling before! This should be considered when others speak disparingly about the recent ruling as have many high ranking judges and other well respected legal experts!.
Even more so when it was decided by only one vote and the reason for that flipped vote are flimsy and ridiculous.
It's law until it gets repealed, that thanks to Roberts's actions. Sorry if some here think we that disagree should just not voice our concerns and displeasure. Freedom of speech allows us to do so be we right or wrong!
Also, for the record I've myself not labelled you any of those that you listed. The SCOTUS can and often does consider things not brought up by the litigants directly, for they have to do so to render a verdict. Its their job to know all the previous laws, statutes and rulings. In addition to know and understand our Constitution extremely well.
Its not their job to decide based on personal views, politics and/or public opinion. My opinion is that Roberts delberately decided based upon personal and political considerations and Im far from being alone on that .I take such betrayal of trust and duty to be treason in "spirit" even if nothing else! For his responsibility to uphold for we the people the authority and survival of our Constitution is paramount. His decision blew a hole in our Constitution IMHO and I judge him harshly accordingly.-Tyr

red states rule

07-07-2012, 11:22 AM

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_of9ue2vob2g/Smej_UqIdmI/AAAAAAAAJtM/FJcseRCRe9Y/s400/doctor+obama.jpg

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 11:31 AM

I read it that way too Tyr. If you didn't mean to imply you didn't respect the other justices represent ing the majority opinion, color me shocked. But I, stubbornly, believe that is your opinion and your shock at such an assumption is farcical.

Why would I respect thier decision if I agree with the other four judges that think they got it wrong! I respect thier authority but not the decision!
It is Constitutional and currently the law of the land because of the ruling! Show me where I've said it was not so!
I disagree with the ruling and believe Roberts the deciding vote yielded to outside pressure and influence.
Why should I pretend that I agree or respect a decision that I firmly believe to be wrong?
I acknowledge the authority of the ruling but does that mean I should not voice my thoughts as to it being wrong?
How about those other 4 well respected SCOTUS judges are they to be ridiculed , mocked or consider farcical in thier opinions as well? Are they to suddenly be considered as non-originalists in thier opinions or stature?
My expression of being shocked was directed to one particular person's reply to me. For I did not say that I am shocked that anybody else may or may not take my words that way. It was not an open ended statement. It was a reply to one specific person on one specific point. -Tyr

jimnyc

07-07-2012, 11:38 AM

Tyr, I respect your stance/opinion. I think you have good reason to be angry about this decision. I just disagree that it amounts to the legal definition of treason. Outside of that, I'm as angry as you are and hopefully it will get repealed.

Kathianne

07-07-2012, 11:38 AM

DragonStryk72

07-07-2012, 12:14 PM

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 12:39 PM

Hey hyper-partisans: Read this slowly so it will soak in. I will type it slowly as well:

The SCOTUS

(with me so far?)

Does not and cannot rule

On arguments NOT MADE before it.

It is not a investigative body

It is not a self starter

It is not not preemptive

It is not preventative

The argument of which House the bill originated in WAS NOT MADE therefore it is IRRELEVANT to the proceedings before the court and could NOT have been considered by the jurists even if it had been known to them.

Because the argument WAS NOT MADE.

What part of this do you not understand?

Let it GO and concentrate on the Franklinesque suggestion that Roberts got the four "liberals" of the court to sign off on.

He was trying to TELL us something.... LISTEN.

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 12:40 PM

So, basically, you're saying that we're allowed to be lied to in the most graphic ways possible, defrauded, and that was the aim of the Constitution? Because otherwise, they really are in standing violation of their oaths of office. Now it may not be treason, but it's not legal either.

If I go in and a dealer sells me a car, then gives me a boat instead of the car that I paid for, I am within my rights to feel that fraud was involved ,and I'd be correct.Straw arguments, logical fallacies. Read my post just previous.

logroller

07-07-2012, 12:44 PM

Why would I respect thier decision if I agree with the other four judges that think they got it wrong! I respect thier authority but not the decision!
It is Constitutional and currently the law of the land because of the ruling! Show me where I've said it was not so!
I disagree with the ruling and believe Roberts the deciding vote yielded to outside pressure and influence.
Why should I pretend that I agree or respect a decision that I firmly believe to be wrong?
I acknowledge the authority of the ruling but does that mean I should not voice my thoughts as to it being wrong?
How about those other 4 well respected SCOTUS judges are they to be ridiculed , mocked or consider farcical in thier opinions as well? Are they to suddenly be considered as non-originalists in thier opinions or stature?
My expression of being shocked was directed to one particular person's reply to me. For I did not say that I am shocked that anybody else may or may not take my words that way. It was not an open ended statement. It was a reply to one specific person on one specific point. -Tyr

Yes, he rewrote the law instead of ruling it Unconstitutional. ...! By doing so he Unconstitutionally forced the law to have to be repealed rather than the law to have to be rewritten, resubmitted and vote on again! With his knowledge, his job and his sworn oath that is treason in this man's book. But then again , I do not a have a damn PC bone in my body. Unlike many Americans I havent been taught the fine art of appeasement and as with so many(libs/dems/socalists) the fine art of ass kissing! -Tyr

Unconstitutional = from my opinion , research and the other 4 respected SCOTUS JUDGES.
Treason, from my opinion and the truest definition of the word which in my opinion should have listed the willful and deliberate breaking of one's sworn oath of office. I am not a lawyer so the case of treason would be better decided by an attorney bringing charges of his actions, decided by a competent judge rendering a verdict.. Sure it would likely get tossed ....
My friend , Jimmy is an attorney . He has agreed that it's at least treason in "spirit" if nothing else.
I will call it treason, come hell or high water and here is why. In my opinion the man deliberately betrayed the trust placed in him to not only do the right thing but to uphold the Constitution and did so for personal and political reasons. Both of which he sworn NOT TO DO!
I'm not trying him in court , I am making a personal judgement of his actions and betrayal of sworn duty!-Tyr

What I'm having trouble with is your circular reasoning; that something can be ruled constitutional by un-constitutional means. How is that not intrinsically flawed? The contrary would hold though; that something can be ruled UN-constitutional by constitutional means. By suggesting the majority opinion of the supreme court is treasonous to their oath to uphold the COtUS, whih they are solely vested by the constitution to decide without reprisal, you have shown disdain for their constitutional authority-- that's not respectful in any sense of the word. Not saying you couldn't be right on the law being wrong, but the people are the final arbiter of right vs wrong; that's how our system works. I'm glad that Roberts had the gumption to rule the way he did.I'm baffled by the tax/not tax thing; but I think ruling upon this the way they did provides a faster means to its being undone. Had they ruled that it was a tax and therefor exempted from consideration, we'd of had to wait years before it could be challenged. As is, they severed those parts which had no support in the constitution and remanded the remaining portions to the people and their representatives to decide right from wrong-- it's not perfect, but neither is the constitution, else there'd be no reason for amendments, right?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 12:46 PM

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/

Good Analysis
Randy Barnett, author of the Bill of Federalism and a prime mover in the challenges to ObamaCare (he represented the NFIB in NFIB v. Sebelius), simplifies and clarifies the Roberts ruling:

Roberts' decision made bad law in two respects. First, he claimed the power to rewrite a law by giving it a "saving construction" to uphold it, after he admitted that this was not the best reading of what the law actually said. Second, he allowed that Congress may impose an unprecedented tax on inactivity, provided that it is low enough to preserve the tax payer's "choice" to obey or pay. Both of these maneuvers made constitutional law worse, even if they did save this law in hope of avoiding political attacks on the court.
But the deal that Roberts gave constitutional conservatives was to make constitutional law better in more important ways. He agreed with the four conservative justices that the powers of Congress were limited by Article I of the Constitution; that the Supreme Court would enforce these limits; that the individual insurance mandate exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause; that compulsion to engage in commerce was "improper" under the Necessary and Proper Clause; and that Congress could not use its spending power to coerce states into vastly expanding the Medicaid program by withholding existing funding. These are all rulings that 99 percent of law professors had argued against.

I do not praise Chief Justice Roberts for making this political deal. But neither do I want to throw away all that we won because I don't like what we lost.

And conservatives and libertarians need to stop agreeing with progressives that his ruling gave Congress a green light to impose economic mandates under its tax power. It didn't.

Herr Barnett posts a more detailed analysis here. It's well worth your time.

Although I disagree with his last bolded (by me) comment , the rest makes good sense IMHO.
His first bolded( by me) statement, stating that Roberts made a political deal seems to be pretty accurate.
For Roberts is sworn not to decide using political views as a basis. Doing so is in itself unconstitutional. strike one
He wrote law by rewriting it himself =judicial fiat. strike two.
He made it Constituional for Congress to tax(NOT LIMITED) for not purchasing a service or product. STRIKE THREE.--Tyr

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 12:54 PM

And conservatives and libertarians need to stop agreeing with progressives that his ruling gave Congress a green light to impose economic mandates under its tax power. It didn't.No one with any knowledge of how our system works have ever made such a assertion. Roberts made clear in his opinion that this was NOT a precedent. Everything else such will still be handled case by case, it is NOT a green light for more such crap. Anyone claiming that is simply ignorant and hasn't read the opinion of the majority.

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 12:59 PM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 01:04 PM

No one with any knowledge of how our system works have ever made such a assertion. Roberts made clear in his opinion that this was NOT a precedent. Everything else such will still be handled case by case, it is NOT a green light for more such crap. Anyone claiming that is simply ignorant and hasn't read the opinion of the majority.

Congress will take it how they want to. They will react according to how they interpret the decision not as to how it will be decided when Constitutional challenges arise fromthier doing so! Anyone claiming otherwise is simply ignorant and hasnt studied how Congress functions and how it has enacted laws without regard to CONSTITUTIONALITY IN THE PAST! How much more so now with a greenlight to do so?
The light is green if they choose it to be and dem/lib/leftists will so choose in order to advance their agenda. . If you are ignorant of that many of us are not! -Tyr

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 01:11 PM

Congress will take it how they want to. They will react according to how they interpret the decision not as to how it will be decided when Constitutional challenges arise from thier doing so! Anyone claiming otherwise is simply ignorant and hasnt studied how Congress functions and how it has enacted laws without regard to CONSTITUTIONALITY IN THE PAST! How much more so now with a greenlight to do so?
The light is green if they choose it to be and dem/lib/leftists will so choose in order to advance their agenda. . If you are ignorant of that many of us are not! -TyrI never addressed that or said anything about it. Therefore again, you are erecting a straw man.

If they do continue this little strategy, it might well wind up before the SCOTUS too.

The KEY IS WHAT ROBERTS WAS TRYNA TELL YOU - VOTE THE FUCKERS OUT!

For some reason, he is expecting you to be self reliant.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 01:13 PM

There is no relation to the legal arguments used to get the SCOTUS to hear your case, and the arguments you make once you are before the court. Both sides get to argue the points they bring.

The losing side here, did NOT bring the argument that would have snuffed out the "it's a tax" argument.

THAT is who you all should be mad at, if anyone.

Bull, SCOTUS ruled it not a TAX to hear the case, then ruled it a TAX to uphold the law! Had to be wrong at least once. IF WRONG ON THEFIRST THEN THE RULING IS TRULY INVALID BECAUSE THEY HAD NO LEGAL RIGHT TO HEAR THE CASE AT ALL. IF WRONG ON THE SECOND THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE RULED IT ILLEGAL AS IT WAS FOUND NOT VALID UNDER THE DEFENSE OF JUSTIFICATION BEING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.
You keep ignoring that and ignoring previous post by me with a link concerning that.
You pretend such shennanigins are fine and dandy. Why because the tie breaker was the guy flipping?
His flipping wasnt integrity rather just the opposite!-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 01:21 PM

I never addressed that or said anything about it. Therefore again, you are erecting a straw man.

If they do continue this little strategy, it might well wind up before the SCOTUS too.

The KEY IS WHAT ROBERTS WAS TRYNA TELL YOU - VOTE THE FUCKERS OUT!

For some reason, he is expecting you to be self reliant.

FREAKING BULL AGAIN. Roberts tosses the law out(as he should have) , they are free to resubmit it. Repeal it requires so much more and puts the burden back on the wrong side!
He need not rewrite the damn thing and put the burden back on the wrong people!
In fact his rewriting =judicial fiat.
No, we expected him to rule according to the Constitution not take it upon himself to rewrite it into a tax law. A tax law that was not voted on as a tax law! Thats why he should have told the opposition to resubmit the law after he tossed it. Instead he chose to place the heavy burden on us rather than where it should have been rightly placed.-Tyr

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 01:25 PM

Bull, SCOTUS ruled it not a TAX to hear the case, then ruled it a TAX to uphold the law!That is not what happened. The issue which got the case to the court was whether the G can make you buy something. It had nothing to do with if the "penalty" is a tax or not, and this didn't come up until the government's solicitors argued that it was a tax.

The opposition merely agreed tacitly. And therefore, they lost.

Anton Chigurh

07-07-2012, 01:26 PM

FREAKING BULL AGAIN. Roberts tosses the law out(as he should have) , they are free to resubmit it. Repeal it requires so much more and puts the burden back on the wrong side!
He need not rewrite the damn thing and put the burden back on the wrong people!
In fact his rewriting =judicial fiat.
No, we expected him to rule according to the Constitution not take it upon himself to rewrite it into a tax law. A tax law that was not voted on as a tax law! Thats why he should have told the opposition to resubmit the law after he tossed it. Instead he chose to place the heavy burden on us rather than where it should have been rightly placed.-TyrIt is evident now, you are not rational. Way too emotional and not even bothering to think. You are a waste of my time.

Toodles.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 01:42 PM

What I'm having trouble with is your circular reasoning; that something can be ruled constitutional by un-constitutional means. How is that not intrinsically flawed? The contrary would hold though; that something can be ruled UN-constitutional by constitutional means. By suggesting the majority opinion of the supreme court is treasonous to their oath to uphold the COtUS, whih they are solely vested by the constitution to decide without reprisal, you have shown disdain for their constitutional authority-- that's not respectful in any sense of the word. Not saying you couldn't be right on the law being wrong, but the people are the final arbiter of right vs wrong; that's how our system works. I'm glad that Roberts had the gumption to rule the way he did.I'm baffled by the tax/not tax thing; but I think ruling upon this the way they did provides a faster means to its being undone. Had they ruled that it was a tax and therefor exempted from consideration, we'd of had to wait years before it could be challenged. As is, they severed those parts which had no support in the constitution and remanded the remaining portions to the people and their representatives to decide right from wrong-- it's not perfect, but neither is the constitution, else there'd be no reason for amendments, right?

The bolded above. No I have not done that. I suggested only Roberts has done wrong . I've stated my reasons for believing that as well. I did not state the majority opinion was treasonous, only that it was wrong! If so, please show the words showing that I stated the majority opinion was treasonous specificly.
I place the Constitution in far higher regard than I do any court or any group of men in that court!
Certainly that in spades in regards to this particular court and its current members!
Their ruling it was not a tax in order to hear the case , then ruling it was a tax in order to uphold the law is not integrity or constutional in the any true sense of it , it is however constitutional by law because it became the final verdict of the court!

See the hat ,no rabbit (NO TAX), see the hat look a rabbit (A TAX),magic tricks its ok but SCOTUS doing it is NOT!--Tyr

revelarts

07-07-2012, 01:58 PM

They can be partisans now, after the fact. It's perfectly okay. Calling Robert's decision "treason" is nonsense, no matter how many people say it.To get the case before the SCOTUS required one argument, winning the case before the SCOTUS required another. Happens all the time.
Dragon S aswered you here correctly
you claimed it's a straw man and logical fallacy, sorry but you mistaken.

let break down what you say here

"They can be partisans now, after the fact. It's perfectly okay."
So you say they can DO AND SAY ONE THING before,
then DO AND SAY ANOTHER THING after
and that "its PERFECTLY OK."
You did not mention the details that in this Particular case
they CLAIMED the law was
ONE THING then claimed it was ANOTHER now.
Most people call that lying, you and Log may have lawyer language to soften that but that what it is.

next you go on to say
"Calling Robert's decision "treason" is nonsense, no matter how many people say it."
Well legally you may be right on this point.

you go on to say
"To get the case before the SCOTUS required one argument, winning the case before the SCOTUS required another."

In some cases that's done very legitimately. Where each argument is true and adds to each others legal force but in this case the arguments are contrary but you ignore that fact and try to blambozal us, if not yourself, applying a legitimate principal to corrupt details.

DragonStryk72

07-07-2012, 02:55 PM

Straw arguments, logical fallacies. Read my post just previous.

Not straw arguments, or logical fallacies. It either is a tax, which means they lied to us, or it isn't a tax, and they perjured themselves to the SCOTUS. Both cannot be true. Learn what a logical fallacy actually is before throwing the word around.

logroller

07-07-2012, 03:59 PM

The bolded above. No I have not done that. I suggested only Roberts has done wrong . I've stated my reasons for believing that as well. I did not state the majority opinion was treasonous, only that it was wrong! If so, please show the words showing that I stated the majority opinion was treasonous specifically.

You don't need to state it-- its implied.
They all took the same oath to obey the same Constitution. You can't have Roberts guilty of treason and not the others who signed the same opinion-- if he did, all who agreed did. Take the Declaration of Independence, whose signers committed treason to the Crown-- It's not like John Hancock committed the act alone or was somehow more culpable-- Every man who signed that document was equally culpable. In the same manner, neither can you condemn Roberts as a traitor and not the other justices in agreement. The only evidence you provide against Roberts is that you believe he acted out of his political interests--- which he should not--- and yet you also call him a 'turncoat' to the conservative political ideals he assumedly had... SO which is it-- Is he traitor because he acted politically, or because acted against your politics? Its plain, to me, that its the latter.

I went back to search your posts for evidence,(see below) and I realized I could make a better case for your being a traitor than you have Roberts, because in response to this ruling you condemned all three branches of the US government, pronounced rhetoric regarding the spillage of blood patriotic responses and "not joking"-ly, attaining ammunition. I don't believe that counts as waging war, but rather, merely inciting rebellion, but nonetheless, I doubt you would find much sympathy in a federal grand jury...or "ffkk them too".

FFFKK THEM! Im not obeying such an UnConstitutional ruling or law!
Every true patriot must be honored bound to say hell no!
Otherwise they are yielding to the destruction of this nation!
I will not pay!!!!!! Dont doubt me as I never yield or break my word!
This shows the corruption that has set in too deep.
FFKK obama and SCOTUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Tyr

By hook and crook they did, complete with bribes.
By the way ffkk [Congress] too. I abandone my principles for no man or group of men..
How many here can say and do the same?-Tyr

That scum Kagan did not recuse herself. Says it all right there IMHO. SCOTUS IS A JOKE!
VOTE HIM OUT OR THIS NATION IS DOOMED!
May God cursed the goddamn ffking bastard!
I'll fight for my children and grandchildren's future!
A damn good time to buy more ammmmmmmmmmmmmmo. Not joking! JEFFERSON WAS RIGHT , TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE NOURISHED BY THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS..
ANYBODY THAT DOES NOT LIKE THAT COMMENT CAN KISS MY ASS!-Tyr

Hmmmm. Who here has ever been asked the question, "Have you ever heard somebody talk about overthrowing the US government?"... Until I conversed with you, Tyr, I have never even contemplated answering that question in the affirmative. So I think its bluntly ironic that you would accuse another of treason...except where you define it yourself, I suppose.:rolleyes:

revelarts

07-07-2012, 04:29 PM

You don't need to state it-- its implied.
They all took the same oath to obey the same Constitution. You can't have Roberts guilty of treason and not the others who signed the same opinion-- if he did, all who agreed did. Take the Declaration of Independence, whose signers committed treason to the Crown-- It's not like John Hancock committed the act alone or was somehow more culpable-- Every man who signed that document was equally culpable. In the same manner, neither can you condemn Roberts as a traitor and not the other justices in agreement. The only evidence you provide against Roberts is that you believe he acted out of his political interests--- which he should not--- and yet you also call him a 'turncoat' to the conservative political ideals he assumedly had... SO which is it-- Is he traitor because he acted politically, or because acted against your politics? Its plain, to me, that its the latter.

I went back to search your posts for evidence,(see below) and I realized I could make a better case for your being a traitor than you have Roberts, because in response to this ruling you condemned all three branches of the US government, pronounced rhetoric regarding the spillage of blood patriotic responses and "not joking"-ly, attaining ammunition. I don't believe that counts as waging war, but rather, merely inciting rebellion, but nonetheless, I doubt you would find much sympathy in a federal grand jury...or "ffkk them too".

Hmmmm. Who here has ever been asked the question, "Have you ever heard somebody talk about overthrowing the US government?"... Until I conversed with you, Tyr, I have never even contemplated answering that question in the affirmative. So I think its bluntly ironic that you would accuse another of treason...except where you define it yourself, I suppose.:rolleyes:

So Obama should put Tyr AND the SCOTUS on the terrorist list and Drone strike them all in the morning!!! traitors all !!
that's constitutional too now ya know.
the SCOTUS and Prez said so, so it is. correct?

lil dejavu argument follows

never mind what the constitution says... it's what the SCOTUS says it means and what the Prez gets away with that REALLY makes something "constitutional" to some people. No matter how far it is away from (or even opposite) any idea an unbiased reader would get from it.

The constitutions says the sky is blue, the SCOTUS says its Yellow therefore ergo presto supremo, *poof* it's constitutionally now.
BS, the SCOTUS has broken the law. The problem is there's no easy way to call any of the feds on any of their continued subtle and blatant unconstitutionally criminal acts.

revelarts

07-07-2012, 04:54 PM

That wasn't argued, otherwise it might well have been.

Obama's solicitors argued it was a tax, and the other side didn't dispute that. The fact that the bill originated in the Senate instead of the House isn't grounds for the SCOTUS to consider unless THAT is the claim against it. It never was.

.....
The SCOTUS does not consider arguments which are not made. That argument wasn't made.

But they did follow the rule book; they considered the arguments put before them. If you think the court should go out looking for things to rule unconstitutional, then change the rules; but they are bound to consider only those things brought before them.
...

Hey hyper-partisans: Read this slowly so it will soak in. I will type it slowly as well:

The SCOTUS
(with me so far?)
Does not and cannot rule
On arguments NOT MADE before it.
false. They can bring up ANY tangent they wish and Have in the past.
It is not a investigative body
false. They can and have brought evidence not prestented by either side to decided case.
It is not a self starter
false. They can bring up ANY legal tangent they wish and have in the past.
It is not not preemptive
false. but no one has asked them to be.
It is not preventative
No one has asked them to be.
The argument of which House the bill originated in WAS NOT MADE therefore it is IRRELEVANT to the proceedings before the court and could NOT have been considered by the jurists even if it had been known to them.
false. They rule on the constitutionality by deliberating on the whole of a laws impact on the constitution not only only the details brought by the parties. that's their job. the question of the laws constitutionality was in question and the judges can turn the law under ANY light relevant to that.
Because the argument WAS NOT MADE.
I still have to look at the details here, but several friend of the court briefs where filed as well i'd be surprised if that fact did not come up.

And BESIDES THAT, the fact that the judges found that the congress supposedly has the right to do this under the taxing powers FOUND in the constitution, then it would seem that those powers are subject to the rules ALSO FOUND in the Constitution?
RSR's point is 100% valid. the ruling is bogus on that 1 point.

How can you find the power of the congress to do something in one part of the Constitution
but ignore the part where it's reigned in by specific powers given to each house?

Sure you can to do it. They DID do it.
But it's not honest.
And Clearly the Obamacare law is STILL not constitutional no matter what light you put it in. However it's being treated as law but it's not Constitutional.

So now it is OK to ignore the Constitution when they make their rulings? I do recall Ginsberg saying she should be allowed to consider foreign law when she makes her decisions
So I guess now they do whatever they want whenever they want
That's how some folks see it.

But that's a great, quote from Ginsburg.
It seems the SCOTUS just brings up whatever they need and ignore what they don't want.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 05:39 PM

You don't need to state it-- its implied.
They all took the same oath to obey the same Constitution. You can't have Roberts guilty of treason and not the others who signed the same opinion-- if he did, all who agreed did. Take the Declaration of Independence, whose signers committed treason to the Crown-- It's not like John Hancock committed the act alone or was somehow more culpable-- Every man who signed that document was equally culpable. In the same manner, neither can you condemn Roberts as a traitor and not the other justices in agreement. The only evidence you provide against Roberts is that you believe he acted out of his political interests--- which he should not--- and yet you also call him a 'turncoat' to the conservative political ideals he assumedly had... SO which is it-- Is he traitor because he acted politically, or because acted against your politics? Its plain, to me, that its the latter.

I went back to search your posts for evidence,(see below) and I realized I could make a better case for your being a traitor than you have Roberts, because in response to this ruling you condemned all three branches of the US government, pronounced rhetoric regarding the spillage of blood patriotic responses and "not joking"-ly, attaining ammunition. I don't believe that counts as waging war, but rather, merely inciting rebellion, but nonetheless, I doubt you would find much sympathy in a federal grand jury...or "ffkk them too".

Hmmmm. Who here has ever been asked the question, "Have you ever heard somebody talk about overthrowing the US government?"... Until I conversed with you, Tyr, I have never even contemplated answering that question in the affirmative. So I think its bluntly ironic that you would accuse another of treason...except where you define it yourself, I suppose.:rolleyes:

SO YOU DISAGREE WITH JEFFERSON'S QUOTE WHICH PRESENTS THAT THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE NOURISHED WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS.
Tell you what, should I ever get ready to make a REAL CALL for a revolution you'll be the last person that I announce it to.
My words were spoke against a possible future government that has completely turned on its citizens. We arent there yet but we are getting closer everyday!
You have a problem with my suggesting buy more ammo? Do tell.....
Or is it about more my defiant attitude towards our current lousy regime in power?

"Occasionally the Tree of Liberty must be water with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.

I find it strange myself that one would oppose the heart of that message..

Feel free to turn me in to obama and boys if you havent already done so! -Tyr

logroller

07-07-2012, 05:42 PM

So Obama should put Tyr AND the SCOTUS on the terrorist list and Drone strike them all in the morning!!! traitors all !!
that's constitutional too now ya know.
the SCOTUS and Prez said so so it is. correct?

lil dejavu argument follows

never mind what the constitution says... it's what the SCOTUS says it means and what the Prez gets away with that REALLY makes something "constitutional" to some people. No matter how far it is away from (or even opposite) any idea an unbiased reader would get from it.

The constitutions says the sky is blue, the SCOTUS says its Yellow therefore ergo presto supremo, *poof* it's constitutionally now.
BS the SCOTUS has broken the law. The problem is there's no easy way to call any of the feds on any of their subtle or blatant unconstitutionally criminal acts.

Ooh strawman. Did I say anything about terrorists lists or drone strikes? or the sky being yellow? Simple question rev.
Q: according to the Constitution, Who is the final arbiter on matters which arise under the Constitution?
Disagree all you want; believe what you want too; allude to taking up arms and spilling blood in response to the government's rule of law, expect the govt to rebuke you.
The problem is you assume treachery to be pejorative. Do you deny the signees of DofI were traitors to the crown? Of course they were; but they are remembered as american patriots. Its good to be the winner. As Churchill said, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 05:55 PM

Ooh strawman. Did I say anything about terrorists lists or drone strikes? or the sky being yellow? Simple question rev.
Q: according to the Constitution, Who is the final arbiter on matters which arise under the Constitution?
Disagree all you want; believe what you want too; allude to taking up arms and spilling blood in response to the government's rule of law, expect the govt to rebuke you. The problem is you assume treachery to be pejorative. Do you deny the signees of DofI were traitors to the crown? Of course they were; but they are remembered as american patriots. Its good to be the winner. As Churchill said, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

Seems to me it is YOU here and now attempting to do the rebuking not the government.
Or have I got it wrong?--Tyr

logroller

07-07-2012, 06:01 PM

SO YOU DISAGREE WITH JEFFERSON'S QUOTE WHICH PRESENTS THAT THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE NOURISHED WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS.
Tell you what, should I ever get ready to make a REAL CALL for a revolution you'll be the last person that I announce it to.
My words were spoke against a possible future government that has completely turned on its citizens. We arent there yet but we are getting closer everyday!
You have a problem with my suggesting buy more ammo? Do tell.....
Or is more my defiant attitude towards of current lousy regime in power?--Tyr
No problem. Traitors have their place. You just assume treason is a pejorative, and its not necessarily so. As I previously stated, the founding fathers were traitors...to the crown, but traitors nonetheless. Americans and free people around the world owe them a debt of gratitude for their pledged sacrifice-- i choose not to repay that with armed rebellion-- But make no mistake, I could if necessary. Its not necessary--yet anyways--so I don't go about talking about it...cause its borderline criminal.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 06:11 PM

So Obama should put Tyr AND the SCOTUS on the terrorist list and Drone strike them all in the morning!!! traitors all !!
that's constitutional too now ya know.
the SCOTUS and Prez said so, so it is. correct?

lil dejavu argument follows

never mind what the constitution says... it's what the SCOTUS says it means and what the Prez gets away with that REALLY makes something "constitutional" to some people. No matter how far it is away from (or even opposite) any idea an unbiased reader would get from it.

The constitutions says the sky is blue, the SCOTUS says its Yellow therefore ergo presto supremo, *poof* it's constitutionally now.
BS, the SCOTUS has broken the law. The problem is there's no easy way to call any of the feds on any of their continued subtle and blatant unconstitutionally criminal acts.

I fully expect that the diligently gathered evidence has already been submitted to the proper authorities. I mean clearly research was gathered on my posts and the conclusion made that I was far more likely to be a traitor than Roberts. Of course I am just a citizen exercising my freedom of speech, wheras Roberts is sworn by oath and duty to uphold and protect our Constitution! He is not delegated to make law by rewriting existing law and ignoring our Constitution!
Some people havent enough sense or integrity to dare say that SCOTUS itself has ruled Unconstitutionally. And some want those that do dare to do that either shut tha ffkk up or stop due to implied threats IMHO. Thus denying them also their right to free speech as well. O', I got the implied threat, and it didnt sit well with me ..-Tyr

revelarts

07-07-2012, 06:14 PM

Ooh strawman. Did I say anything about terrorists lists or drone strikes? or the sky being yellow? Simple question rev.
no you did not. I never said you did.

Q: according to the Constitution, Who is the final arbiter on matters which arise under the Constitution?
The Supreme Court.
And if their rulings Obviously contradicts what the words of the constitution say should we just PRETEND that they have done their job correctly? Or should we call them out on it?
And BTW, Where does the power of the Constitution come from?

Disagree all you want; believe what you want too;
I have an I will you should join me.

...allude to taking up arms and spilling blood in response to the government's rule of law, expect the govt to rebuke you.
The problem is you assume treachery to be pejorative. Do you deny the signees of DofI were traitors to the crown? Of course they were; but they are remembered as american patriots. Its good to be the winner. As Churchill said, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."
I never alluded to taking up arms, but I did say there's no easy way to correct the feds. There are several non violent options though.
However you mention "the gov't's rule of law" but is it the rule of law if they are not following the law?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 06:16 PM

No problem. Traitors have their place. You just assume treason is a pejorative, and its not necessarily so. As I previously stated, the founding fathers were traitors...to the crown, but traitors nonetheless. Americans and free people around the world owe them a debt of gratitude for their pledged sacrifice-- i choose not to repay that with armed rebellion-- But make no mistake, I could if necessary. Its not necessary--yet anyways--so I don't go about talking about it...cause its borderline criminal.

Pity that you waste all that research on me. How about just sending it into that website the traitor obama set up, you know the snitch on your fellow American website.
How about you let me decide what is free speech and what is borderline criminal. I need no advice on it and certainly need no implied threats.
I mean you just called me a traitor for daring to speak as a patriot IMHO. Looks to me like you called the Rev too. -Tyr

logroller

07-07-2012, 06:19 PM

Seems to me it is YOU here and now attempting to do the rebuking not the government.
Or have I got it wrong?--Tyr
Just offering a word of caution--that's all you should make of this.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 06:24 PM

Just offering a word of caution--that's all you should make of this.

Well, if thats all it was I thank you for your concern then!!!
Let us both defend our nation to the best of our abilities and encourage free speech and voting the problem out of office this November!
Join me in having a beer? -:beer:--Tyr

revelarts

07-07-2012, 06:35 PM

I fully expect that the diligently gathered evidence has already been submitted to the proper authorities. I mean clearly research was gathered on my posts and the conclusion made that I was far more likely to be a traitor than Roberts. Of course I am just a citizen exercising my freedom of speech, wheras Roberts is sworn by oath and duty to uphold and protect our Constitution! He is not delegated to make law by rewriting existing law and ignoring our Constitution!
Some people havent enough sense or integrity to dare say that SCOTUS itself has ruled Unconstitutionally. And some want those that do dare to do that either shut tha ffkk up or stop due to implied threats IMHO. Thus denying them also their right to free speech as well. O', I got the implied threat, and it didnt sit well with me ..-Tyr
Pity that you waste all that research on me. How about just sending it into that website the traitor obama set up, you know the snitch on your fellow American website.
How about you let me decide what is free speech and what is borderline criminal.
Tyr it's not your job, the authorities will decide that my freind, don't worry, it will be constitutional too i'm sure.. I need no advice on it and certainly need no implied threats.
I mean you just called me a traitor for daring to speak as a patriot IMHO. Looks to me like the Rev too. -Tyr

Tyr you just don't get what Log is explaining to us I think.
the "proper authorities" you mention are the ONLY ones with the right to make a determination who's a traitor and who's not, But Obviously disagreeing with the Gov't is the 1st sign of a REAL traitor. Your opinion does not matter except ,that you are free to have it. As other traitors in history like Washington and Jefferson and I suppose Harriet Tubman who broke the law to free slaves, and Lucria Mott who broke the law so women could vote all had their traitorous opinions.
(log says it was by way of warning, OK , so ignore the above ref to Log, but the points in general are valid)

And Tyr as far as Roberts Swearing an oath to the constitution, well if you get to tell everyone what the constitution REALLY means anywho, that kinda works pretty good 4ya don't it? yessiree.

logroller

07-07-2012, 06:45 PM

no you did not. I never said you did.

The Supreme Court.
And if their rulings Obviously contradicts what the words of the constitution say should we just PRETEND that they have done their job correctly? Or should we call them out on it?
And BTW, Where does the power of the Constitution come from?

I have an I will you should join me.

I never alluded to taking up arms, but I did say there's no easy way to correct the feds. There are several non violent options though.
However you mention "the gov't's rule of law" but is it the rule of law if they are not following the law?power from the People. Voting is the preferred method of instigating change. The rule of law is the rule so long as the majority of the people support it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 06:49 PM

Tyr you just don't get what Log is explaining to us I think.
the "proper authorities" you mention are the ONLY ones with the right to make a determination who's a traitor and who's not, But Obviously disagreeing with the Gov't is the 1st sign of a REAL traitor. Your opinion does not matter except ,that you are free to have it. As other traitors in history like Washington and Jefferson and I suppose Harriet Tubman who broke the law to free slaves, and Lucria Mott who broke the law so women could vote all had their traitorous opinions.
(log says it was by way of warning, OK , so ignore the above ref to Log, but the points in general are valid)

And Tyr as far as Roberts Swearing an oath to the constitution, well if you get to tell everyone what the constitution REALLY means anywho, that kinda works pretty good 4ya don't it? yessiree.

All great points my friend! However I just offered to have a beer and we both cool off . He has yet to accept .However many Americans have been programmed to think in the way I got that his reasoning implied, that the government/SCOTUS has spoken and nobody should even dare to question that or voice criticism of it! I do not know about his Constitution but mine tells me to do just that and spill blood if ever tyrant should seek to destroy our liberty! That tyranny can be from a single person or a group of people. I make no distinction either way myself.
As an unashamed patriot I will do my duty come hell or high water. Each man must decide for himself. What I will do is not be intimidated by anyone or anything.
I thank you for upholding the Constitution as the final authority and not a certain group of men which can and have before made mistakes . Which is exactly what this group just did IMHO.-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 06:57 PM

Well, if thats all it was I thank you for your concern then!!!
Let us both defend our nation to the best of our abilities and encourage free speech and voting the problem out of office this November!
Join me in having a beer? -:beer:--Tyr

IS THAT THANK YOU FROM YOU ALSO AN ACCEPTANCE ON THE BEER AS WELL AMIGO?-Tyr

revelarts

07-07-2012, 07:32 PM

power from the People. Voting is the preferred method of instigating change. The rule of law is the rule so long as the majority of the people support it.

right on, Yes the power is From the people Yeah say with me LOG! Yeah!!

cough... I concur.

the rule of law though, ok you say "the rule of law" is the rule, as long as it has majority support.
A lot of ways i could read that.
on my 2nd read it kinda sounds like your saying --the rule of law is great as long as people are working to make it happen after that the rule of the state or whatever has the lead.--

but i'm not sure.

but it's my understanding that "rule of law" in general means:

"The rule of law is fundamental to the western democratic order. Aristotle said more than two thousand years ago, "The rule of law is better than that of any individual." Lord Chief Justice Coke quoting Bracton said in the case of Proclamations (1610) 77 ER 1352

"The King himself ought not to be subject to man, but subject to God and the law, because the law makes him King". "

"The rule of law is an ambiguous term that can mean different things in different contexts. In one context the term means rule according to law. No individual can be ordered by the government to pay civil damages or suffer criminal punishment except in strict accordance with well-established and clearly defined laws and procedures. In a second context the term means rule under law. No branch of government is above the law, and no public official may act arbitrarily or unilaterally outside the law. In a third context the term means rule according to a higher law. No written law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms with certain unwritten, universal principles of fairness, morality, and justice that transcend human legal systems."

Any of those definitions apply to the point i was trying to make
that if the gov't is breaking the law it is not keeping "the rule of law"

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-07-2012, 08:44 PM

IS THAT THANK YOU FROM YOU ALSO AN ACCEPTANCE ON THE BEER AS WELL AMIGO?-Tyr

I guess not then... :laugh2:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-08-2012, 02:31 PM

[QUOTE=Tyr-Ziu Saxnot;564215]

Thanks for accepting amigo... --:beer: :beer:... :salute:--Tyr