Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius
http://whitehouse12.com ^ | 6.28.12 | I.M. Citizen

Posted on 06/28/2012 1:43:28 PM PDT by Whenifhow

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Education; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: genius; healthcare; mess; obamacare; penaltytax; roberts; scotus; shame; tax; whatamess
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2012 1:43:32 PM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Baloney. Robert’s is traitorous scum.

He single handedly saved Obamacare.


2 posted on 06/28/2012 1:48:45 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

So is Sotomayor then I suppose. Can’t forget that conservative stalwart Breyer either. They certainly outfoxed that idiot Scalia didn’t they?

God bless them. We are all freer citizens today.


3 posted on 06/28/2012 1:49:08 PM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Instead of machinations, Roberts’ contorted way to “get back at Obama” is akin to pissing in the wind that splatters everyone.


4 posted on 06/28/2012 1:49:11 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Very interesting.


5 posted on 06/28/2012 1:49:17 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
He also set a precedent that states that the Federal Government can apply a penalty tax for behavior (not purchasing health insurance). If that's OK, then:

Why not a penalty tax for not sending your kids to public schools?

Why not a penalty tax for not buying an electric car?

Why not a penalty tax for not installing a government monitored thermostat in your home?

Why not a penalty tax for not creating a gun-free zone in your house?

6 posted on 06/28/2012 1:49:34 PM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

I’m actually starting to agree with this. The individual mandate was the most important piece and it was struck down. That would have been irreversible damage if that had been upheld.

So Congress can tax, no news there. It’s the political backlash that keeps them from over-exercising that piece.

Hmmm, might not be so bad.


7 posted on 06/28/2012 1:50:03 PM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

*


8 posted on 06/28/2012 1:50:51 PM PDT by PMAS (ABO 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

You are joking, right? Americans are being forced to buy health insurance or be taxed to death. What Roberts did is enshrine the right of Congress to force Americans to do anything they want through the use of the tax system. There are no limits or any charade any more like the Commerce Clause.

Obamacare has been deemed constitutional including the individual mandate. Congress can compel Americans to purchase anything period.

9 posted on 06/28/2012 1:51:46 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Interesting analysis...not sure I really concur though. I was able to read part of the ruling and not sure I agree that is how it reads.
Can you point to the actual text in his opinion that backs this assertion? I keep seeing it being asserted that he is some sort of genius, but haven’t seen the details behind it for my own confirmation.


10 posted on 06/28/2012 1:52:06 PM PDT by An American! (Proud To Be An American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
Six hours after the announcement I am recognizing this scenario and accepting that Roberts has indeed pulled a fast one.

As on cue, Obamster got in front of the cameras and spiked the ball. He needed this "victory" so badly he made no argument or offerred no reason why this is not a tax and therefore completed the ownership of this largest increase in taxes ever.

So yes I am a bit more cool than at 10:20 AM this morning.

11 posted on 06/28/2012 1:52:43 PM PDT by corkoman (Release the Palin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

I really don’t think Roberts put this much thought into his decision. He’s a progressive. This is what progressives do.


12 posted on 06/28/2012 1:52:51 PM PDT by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

That’s putting the best face on it, but I think when people cool off a little they will see that there is some good that could come from this. No longer will the dems be able to say it isn’t a tax. and if many states opt out, the whole program will go belly up. Kind of cool actually...


13 posted on 06/28/2012 1:52:51 PM PDT by refermech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

“So Congress can tax,...”

AND... Congress can repeal taxes. Even better.


14 posted on 06/28/2012 1:53:06 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

BULLSHIT !!!!

Roberts could have done all of that and more by voting with the 4 conservatives. How damn stupid can people be?


15 posted on 06/28/2012 1:53:12 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Perhaps or maybe its just perceived as strategy with Roberts. Irregardless Obama is intent on shoving this monstrosity down our throats so the objective remains the same. Dump his tyrranical butt and all complicit Dems in November. War on Dems-—dont walk to the voting booths—RUN!


16 posted on 06/28/2012 1:53:19 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
Excellent analysis and I pray it is what transpired.

As pissed off as I was, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider harm to Roberts; on the other hand, if that hellhole they call DC and all it's occupants were to suddenly disappear, I wouldn't volunteer for any search parties - I'd be doing partying of another sort.

17 posted on 06/28/2012 1:53:22 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (0bama lied, Freedom Died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
Interesting. I must think on this.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

18 posted on 06/28/2012 1:53:54 PM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny
I’m actually starting to agree with this.

Sad to hear that. With all due respect, I would suggest we forget Roberts for a second. Now make a list of the justices that voted for and against Obamacare as a whole. Now drop Roberts onto the list that matches his vote.

Do you still feel the same way?
19 posted on 06/28/2012 1:55:13 PM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Art 1, Sec 7 Constitution: 2 raise revenue (taxes) MUST originate in House OCare originated in Senate! Sup Court miss that?

Challenges to Ocare coming!

Another view here
Obamacare Ruling

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2900582/posts


20 posted on 06/28/2012 1:55:13 PM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

They just might attach the new “penalty taxes” to something essential such as your electric, gas, water utility bills or maybe your internet service.


21 posted on 06/28/2012 1:56:16 PM PDT by RS_Rider (I hate Illinois Nazis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Actually if Roberts were a genius he would have secured a future for his children and grandchildren. Instead he has knowingly consigned them to hell on earth and by extension all of our children. This nightmare is unworkable. It’s the way civilizations die and his will not be exempt from those horrors.


22 posted on 06/28/2012 1:56:41 PM PDT by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: corkoman

I’m with you.


23 posted on 06/28/2012 1:57:28 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (Running in circles and screaming is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

Would it now be possible for them to enact a penalty tax for not having an abortion?


24 posted on 06/28/2012 1:57:28 PM PDT by Kudsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax.

Except Obama or his solicitor general did not argue it was a tax or is it written as a tax but that the intent of ObamaCare was a 'mandate.' Roberts ignored the intent and the meaning of the law by becoming an activist judge and changed the law "to a tax" to support his erroneous opinion.

25 posted on 06/28/2012 1:57:46 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: refermech

“but I think when people cool off a little they will see that there is some good that could come from this.”

Put down the crack pipe.

So instead of just killing the bill he not only breathes life into it by calling it a tax, he opens the door for us to be taxed over EVERYTHING (like breathing) and that’s a good thing?

This was BAD, BAD, BAD.


26 posted on 06/28/2012 1:57:51 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Interestingly enough they seemed to me to be classifying all funds transferred to the state to be a tax no matter what it is called. I think there will be hell to pay for that.


27 posted on 06/28/2012 1:58:09 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan
He also set a precedent that states that the Federal Government can apply a penalty tax for behavior

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Court did - or could - decide that the tax itself is constitutional. That battle will likely be fought later.

28 posted on 06/28/2012 1:59:16 PM PDT by KevinB (We'll stop treating Obama like a dog when he stops treating us like a fire hydrant - Fred Grandy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: corkoman
So yes I am a bit more cool than at 10:20 AM this morning.

As am I. We all naturally wanted it to be over today, but there is a bit more work left to do.

29 posted on 06/28/2012 2:01:07 PM PDT by KevinB (We'll stop treating Obama like a dog when he stops treating us like a fire hydrant - Fred Grandy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
I agree with a lot of your analysis.

I don't think Roberts acted honorably. I think instead of concentrating only on the constitutionality, he considered the historical political consequences of tossing the whole law, and went french in the face of battle.

But, he did toss conservatives a consolation prize. His majority opinion restricting congress' ability to hide behind the commerce clause while continuing to grow was signed by every liberal hump on the court. I think they were so thrilled to have him on board, they all agreed to whatever phrasing he came up with. Giddy idiots.

Plus, it's a political loss for Team Obama, who now have to face the fact that the economy is in the shitter, and instead of fixing it, they championed the largest middle-class tax hike in American history.

Maybe they can kill bin Laden again.

30 posted on 06/28/2012 2:01:12 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinB

Ummm...the bill would have been dead TODAY if Robert’s hadn’t save it.

Good Lord. What are you smoking?


31 posted on 06/28/2012 2:02:40 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kudsman
Why not? A penalty tax for claiming more than ## dependents. For the same reason that was given for the mandate (now tax): you making that choice puts a “burden” on the public and affects the “general welfare”.
32 posted on 06/28/2012 2:02:44 PM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
You are grasping at straws. You can't unring a bell. You can continue to try to put lipstick on this pig, but it will not work. Roe versu Wade was a bad decision and we are still living with it. So was Kelo.

Roberts had to come with some excuse to make Obamacare constitutional despite the fact that Obama and Congress denied the individual mandate was a tax. Now we are stuck with a legal precedent that will be very difficult to undo even if Obamacare is repealed.

33 posted on 06/28/2012 2:05:02 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

For all those too stupid to understand......ROBERTS SHREDDED WHAT WAS LEFT OF THE CONSTITUTION TODAY.

He stabbed us all in the back.

Talk about denial.


34 posted on 06/28/2012 2:05:20 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

One hopes.


35 posted on 06/28/2012 2:07:02 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Grasping at straws like the Chief Justice himself if he tried to ratioalize this to others this way.

Politics is Power. We did not have it — they did — in 08, 09, 10, with a little less in 11 and 12, but they still have it. If we don’t have our citizenry that votes with us, we have no power save ineffectual rebellion which will work to their advantage.


36 posted on 06/28/2012 2:07:17 PM PDT by KC Burke (Plain Conservative opinions and common sense correction for thirteen years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
The Byrd Rule, the Senate can use reconciliation to tax.
37 posted on 06/28/2012 2:07:38 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
I'm not happy with Roberts vote, but it will be easy to get 60 GOP Senators, are only hope now of completely repealing ObanaCare.
38 posted on 06/28/2012 2:08:32 PM PDT by factmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
I'm not happy with Roberts vote, but it will be easier to get 60 GOP Senators, are only hope now of completely repealing ObanaCare.
39 posted on 06/28/2012 2:09:25 PM PDT by factmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

Hmmm. I don’t believe it would brazenly be called such for the revulsion it would rightly generate. I can see it beeping called something like Community Sustainability Ratio. CSR for short. You know how they love the acronyms. Besides who could ever be against community sustainability?


40 posted on 06/28/2012 2:09:49 PM PDT by Kudsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KevinB

Roberts himself changed the mandate into a tax in the majority opinion. If he planned to kill it as unconstitutional then, why kick it down the road? Why not just leave it as a mandate, which was already unconstitutional?


41 posted on 06/28/2012 2:10:04 PM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Oh puhleeze. Putting a bow on cow dung is no more than cow dung with a bow.


42 posted on 06/28/2012 2:10:18 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
I too am feeling better about this. The more I read, the more I start to imagine Roberts as this guy. Photobucket
43 posted on 06/28/2012 2:11:12 PM PDT by Ronald_Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

Start at line 24, bottom of page 16.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Monday.pdf


44 posted on 06/28/2012 2:11:42 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
Good Lord. What are you smoking?

Not smoking anything. I was very angry this morning, but have been reading and thinking about it all day. I think Obamacare is going to go down, either through repeal or successful challenge of the constitutionality of the tax itself or because it will be unsustainable in light of the states' ability not to participate in the medicaid portion. It is the precedent of the opinion that worries me most. I do believe the tax itself will eventually be found unconstitutional, which will significantly erode any precedent.

45 posted on 06/28/2012 2:11:52 PM PDT by KevinB (We'll stop treating Obama like a dog when he stops treating us like a fire hydrant - Fred Grandy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Except Obama or his solicitor general did not argue it was a tax ....... That is exactly how they argued it before SCOTUS.
46 posted on 06/28/2012 2:12:44 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

47 posted on 06/28/2012 2:14:38 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

Why not a tax for refusing to be armed at all times in public places?

In pre-revolutionary America, many localities had such requirements for the possession of firearms at home with sufficient ammunition to be an integral part of the militia. There is precedent for that.


48 posted on 06/28/2012 2:16:59 PM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
That is exactly how they argued it before SCOTUS.

Not much of "an argument" when Obama's solicitor dodged and weaved when he was asked more than once by the Supreme court if it was a tax. Roberts turned it into a tax.

49 posted on 06/28/2012 2:17:57 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: KevinB

So Roberts is a genius now?

Wow. Denial runs deep.

People can talk themselves into anything.

He stabbed us in the back. He shredded what’s left of the Constitution.


50 posted on 06/28/2012 2:18:05 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson