Posted on 07/02/2012 10:01:08 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the specific language of congress by claiming in his ObamaCare ruling that the penalty which the lawmakers had clearly attached to the individual mandate was actually a tax. It was the only way in which the Affordable Care Act could be saved, for the Court rejected the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clause defenses as constitutional grounds for the existence of the law.
By “penciling in” the tax language necessary to satisfy his own requirement of constitutionality, Roberts behaved no differently from any liberal, activist judge so often criticized by conservatives for judicial malfeasance; that is, he cheated rather than rule against a personally favored piece of legislation.
The question is WHY? WHY did the Chief Justice defraud the Court and the American public rather than rule ObamaCare unconstitutional?
In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote: “The Federal Government does have the power to...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
That's because he IS a liberal, activist judge.
No, he works for the globalists who sent him to Boosh for appointment. He did exactly as he was told to do by those who are working for the final collapse of the We The People Republic ... and they are succeeding at a pace even they did not expect.
We know what Roberts stated to approve Obamacare, but what did the other 4 Traitors use as their excuse for selling out America?
Either that or he was threatened....
or a “Little of column A, a little of column B...”
I concur. Every important issue that needs passage gets done at,by & for the elites. To hell with the people.
bookmark
It really very simple. It’s called the cocktail party circuit. First and foremost, Roberts wants to be DC insider.
El Dictator Obozo to John the traitor, "Hey Justice John, Nancy is really great in bed isn't she, and her pictures of you in bed with her are ready to go on You Tube if you don't vote for us!"
A question for all of us: "When and how did Pelosi know that her side would win?"
So the dems didnt throw him out of the closet. This guy did FREE work for gay rights groups, didnt marry till he wanted to be a Federal judge at age 41, and ruled in FAVOR of gay marriage in DC. He was going to get the Herman Cain treatment.
A tax is as a tax does.
The word was omitted in the final bill only because a Democrat congress wanted to hide the fact from the people. A Democrat congress tried deceived everyone and Roberts saw through the deception. We should be hammering the point at every opportunity.
“Democrats couldn’t fool Roberts court”
“Supreme court reveals Democrat’s deception”
But instead we’re going to beat up on our own while Democrats laugh at how easily they manipulate us.
DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS LIED TO GET THIS BILL PASSED. Now we’re punishing Roberts because he exposed the lie?
With a bill that is based on $1.7 trillion tax increase this would never have passed.
Without the Judiciary rewriting the law it never passes Constitutional muster.
We have been defrauded by Obama, Pelosi/Reid, and now, Roberts. There is nowhere else to go but the people, and I fear the people are too fat, lazy, and dependent on the government, and have no affinity for Liberty and freedom. All may be lost or all may be regained. My bet,...the former.
Ah, because he’s an incompetent political hack?
The law recognizes distinctions between penalities and taxes. A similar bill with taxes was rejected by the Rat House. They made this a penalty and that is what it is, and this term was used 18 times in the law.
Roberts rewrote the law, something even liberals haven’t done before, rather, they usually interpret new constitutional rights, they are not so brazen as to rewrite laws nor do judges have such power.
Don’t make any excuses for Roberts.
With this ruling, he created a new police power for the Federal Government which did not exist prior to June 28, 2012. States have police powers (and can force activity), but not the Feds. With this new Federal police power (enforced through taxes and imprisonment for non-compliers), we now officially live in a police state.
If you didn’t like Massachusetts police power laws (such as Romneycare), you could move to another state. Now, we have nowhere to go, with a Federal police power that can force us to do things. This is NEW and incredible RADICAL and DANGEROUS. Roberts has turned us into a Fascist state.
The democrats did lie but we expect that from them. When an appointment like Roberts does this it is insane. What he did wasn’t to expose their lies. He did what he did to paraphrase him because it is the SCOTUS job to find a way to make laws constitutional. He did this by broadly stretching to governments power to tax.
I contend that it is the job of SCOTUS to protect the constitution of this country and not hunt for ways to get around it by expanding the power of the Fed. govt. and rewriting law.
Bottom line is the American people put ObamaReidPelosi in power and the Supreme Court is not going to rescue us from them. Only putting them out of office in November will save us from Obamacare.
I believe Roberts' dishonest and legally indefensible opinion will define his legacy just as Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case defined his. But that won't stop Obamacare. This November matters, a lot.
There was NO severability clause contained in the 2,700+ pages; if one part if invalid the whole thing is invalid.
These are things I didn’t know. Maybe there are pictures of Roberts and Barney Frank.
Wrong - Roberts is not "our own". A liberal is as a liberal does.
"Now we’re punishing Roberts because he exposed the lie?"
This lie was exposed but only as a way for Roberts and the other 4 lib justices to grant the Federal government the largest power increase in my life time.
Just admit it - we lost this round to the libs. Now gear up for the next fight.
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.