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

Skip to comments.

The not so dependable Chief Justice Roberts
Coach is Right ^ | 1/11/14 | George Spelvin

Posted on 01/11/2014 10:28:02 AM PST by Oldpuppymax

What is motivating Chief Justice John Roberts? Does he need to talk to us, the American people, about his oath to judge the law in an unbiased, non partisan manner? Why are so many judicial decisions being made that clearly run counter to the wishes of the American people? Where is the caveat that America must be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

“Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation,” says observer Pat Dollard (1). This web reporter who cites a LA TIMES news report and interview goes on to stress to readers that “gay rights activists at the time described the court’s 6-3 ruling as the movement’s most important legal victory.” Roberts took on the Romer v. Evans case as a pro bono attorney, but he failed to...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Health/Medicine; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: doma; johnroberts; obamacare; supremecourt

1 posted on 01/11/2014 10:28:02 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

In a word, blackmail.


2 posted on 01/11/2014 10:30:26 AM PST by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Where is Wikileaks when you need them?


3 posted on 01/11/2014 10:33:37 AM PST by Jeff Chandler (Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Smells and everyone I talk to thinks so too. Now what?


4 posted on 01/11/2014 10:34:49 AM PST by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
In a word, blackmail.

Imho, Roberts was compromised. Ya gotta love the IRS and NSA.

Right Valarie?

5.56mm

5 posted on 01/11/2014 10:35:31 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe

.30 cal.


6 posted on 01/11/2014 10:40:53 AM PST by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I am getting really tired of anyone that is in office lying right through their teeth. Either you are for us or you are against us. Too bad the commies are trying to break down everything in America. Go home, commies. Ain’t your country.


7 posted on 01/11/2014 11:16:33 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

A big affirmative action decision is due in June, let’s see how he stands on that.


8 posted on 01/11/2014 11:18:04 AM PST by kenmcg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

“In a word, blackmail.”

Yes, I think you’re probably right.


9 posted on 01/11/2014 11:36:36 AM PST by dljordan (WhoVoltaire: "To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead
Smells and everyone I talk to thinks so too. Now what?

Now he can be impeached for misbehavior by the House ofReprresentatives, tried in the US Senate, and if found guily, he could be removed from office. Misbehavior: Failure to accurately reveal his legal past work

10 posted on 01/11/2014 11:42:21 AM PST by Rapscallion (Had enough? Let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

It’s tough when you get that anonymous phone call reminding you that your kids were not legally adopted and that they have the dope on you. Just make sure that case goes the way we want and you stay SCCJ until you die,……..or we kill you!


11 posted on 01/11/2014 11:53:09 AM PST by Doc Savage ("I've shot people I like a lot more,...for a lot less!" Raylan Givins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
Something is wrong with Roberts. Impeachment now would guarantee that King Obama would suggest another hard core liberal and that would be much worst. Hard to figure what to do with the communists takeover of America.
12 posted on 01/11/2014 11:53:46 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
"Why are so many judicial decisions being made that clearly run counter to the wishes of the American people?"

That is NOT in the job description. It really should not matter what the American people want or don't want.

13 posted on 01/11/2014 11:56:25 AM PST by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion
>> Now he can be impeached for misbehavior by the House of Representatives, tried in the US Senate, and if found guilty, he could be removed from office. <<

Yes, and then Obama would appoint someone 10X worse to replace him. What would you accomplish?

14 posted on 01/11/2014 11:59:15 AM PST by BillyBoy (Looking at the weather lately, I could really use some 'global warming' right now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

So to do nothing is okay with you, huh?


15 posted on 01/11/2014 12:04:29 PM PST by Rapscallion (Had enough? Let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion
Huh? When I did say "to do nothing is okay". I said impeaching and removing Roberts so Obama will replace someone WORSE is idiotic.

Tell me how your "solution" would do anything but move the court to the left.

Maybe if we allowed voters to remove activist federal judges instead of letting politicians appoint WHOEVER they want (which the Senators then rubber stamp), we wouldn't have so many black robed tyrants.

16 posted on 01/11/2014 12:29:16 PM PST by BillyBoy (Looking at the weather lately, I could really use some 'global warming' right now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
In a word, blackmail.

You're getting warm. Horse's head in Johnny's bed, dead fishes? Why? There is no need for overt blackmail, there is just being blackmailable (for lack of a dictionary word), and that is plenty sufficient!

17 posted on 01/11/2014 12:33:28 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Logical me; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Impy; sickoflibs; AuH2ORepublican
>> Something is wrong with Roberts. Impeachment now would guarantee that King Obama would suggest another hard core liberal and that would be much worst. <<

Amazing how many of the "Impeach Roberts" conservatives overlook this simple fact. Yeah, impeach and remove Roberts, then Obama will appoint another Kagan-type communist to fill his seat for the next 3 decades. Problem solved!

The federal judiciary NEEDS to be reformed. Federal judgeships should NOT a lifetime job where they can do whatever they want on the bench and the only recourse is impeachment. Even the "we must never ever amend the constitution and change what the founders set up in 1789" crowd (Rick Perry, Mark Levin, etc.) made an "exception" in this case, and called for new laws to term limit federal judges and hold them accountable for their actions.

18 posted on 01/11/2014 12:35:42 PM PST by BillyBoy (Looking at the weather lately, I could really use some 'global warming' right now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Not “against the will if the American People”....that not what the Supreme Court does. “Against the CONSTITUTION of the United States” is correct and it is not only correct, but more frightening.


19 posted on 01/11/2014 12:36:17 PM PST by ThePatriotsFlag ("There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy; Logical me; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Impy; AuH2ORepublican
RE :” Something is wrong with Roberts. Impeachment now would guarantee that King Obama would suggest another hard core liberal and that would be much worst. <<
....
Amazing how many of the “Impeach Roberts” conservatives overlook this simple fact. Yeah, impeach and remove Roberts, then Obama will appoint another Kagan-type communist to fill his seat for the next 3 decades. Problem solved! “

We all know that Roberts isn't going to be impeached, especially not for making rulings that some don't like .

My grandmother and her generation used to say “They must have seen that someplace before” when we as kids did something they didn't expect to see.

Same with those who keep posting demands that things happen that have no chance of happening, they must hear someone else saying similar things. I guess complete fantasy is easier than reality for some.

20 posted on 01/11/2014 8:25:58 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides; BillyBoy; sickoflibs; AuH2ORepublican; GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj; NFHale

Occum’s razor says he just had a libtarded moment because he’s not as a solid conservative as originally believed.

“Blackmail” was thrown out in the immediate aftermath of the decision by those that couldn’t fathom the likelihood that his betrayal was the free choice of a typical too clever for his own good arrogant judge.

Any blackmail material so damning as to compel him to rule for Obama in that one instance by all logic could have been used to instead make him resign so he could be replaced with a stalinist. Silly conspiracy theory.


21 posted on 01/11/2014 9:39:35 PM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Impy; BillyBoy; sickoflibs; AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj; NFHale; KC_Lion

Chief Jagoff Roberts: Einsatzgruppen.


22 posted on 01/11/2014 9:56:35 PM PST by GOPsterinMA (You're a very weird person, Yossarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Impy; House Atreides; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj; NFHale; KC_Lion
Regarding the Obama-care personal mandate, which is a punitive tax for a selected few:
I always wondered how it was so great and it's constitutional to mandate that hospital ERs must treat us without us paying them for it, but that it was unconstitutional to mandate that we take steps to make sure that we can pay for that mandated treatment, much like auto-insurance liability forces us to make sure we can pay for our accidents.

All that does is hide the tax, in Maryland everyone going to the hospital gets a special tax added to their bill to pay for that ‘freebee’ called the uninsured who shows up at an ER.

But a bigger irony is the Obamacare mandate policies doesn't cover (fix) that problem even though they claimed that was a purpose, those Obamacare exchange policies have huge deductibles still sticking ERs with the bill.

23 posted on 01/11/2014 10:08:22 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Impy; House Atreides; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj; NFHale; KC_Lion
The other thing about the 'unconstitutional' personal mandate:

‘(2) SPECIAL RULES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES- The Secretary shall not—
‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’.

What the Obama-care law text REALLY says on IRS enforcement of the personal Mandate fine/tax

24 posted on 01/11/2014 10:32:20 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Many thanks to ALL THE RIGHT SNARK!

25 posted on 01/11/2014 10:54:27 PM PST by skeptoid (The road to serfdom is being paved by RINO's, and Lisa Murkowski is their mascot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

one word -offset-


26 posted on 01/11/2014 11:05:44 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

“...The Secretary shall not—
‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’...”
*********************************************************************
But Judge Roberts (and thus the majority opinion when combined with the liberals on the court) says that no penalties are imposed -— folks are simply “TAXED”. So since there are no penalties actually being imposed (according to Roberts) there will be no need to impose criminal sanctions or liens because of failure to pay the non-existent penalties.

But try to NOT pay the taxes that will be imposed for failure to buy insurance. Good luck with that.

But nice try anyhow.


27 posted on 01/12/2014 9:13:54 AM PST by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
RE :”But try to NOT pay the taxes that will be imposed for failure to buy insurance. Good luck with that.
But nice try anyhow.”

HA, Roberts DIDN”T overturn that part of the law I posted forbidding the IRS from punishing up for not complying. He upheld it,

That part of the law was not challenged, in fact only a supporter of Obamacare would challenge that part of law and they didn't,

Nice try anyhow!

28 posted on 01/12/2014 4:41:12 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Sorry, but I guess you missed the point I was trying to make. The part of the law you were pointing out said any penalties charged under the law couldn’t be “forcefully” collected. But the Roberts decision said that there ARE NO PENALTIES being charged. Taxes are charged to the non-compliant. There is nothing in the law that says that unpaid TAXES can’t be collected by lien or scarfed up from refunds of other taxes or the bank account(s) of those owing taxes. I guess we’ll have to wait until 2015 when the 2014 taxes are being settled up to see how far the IRS will go to collect “its due”.

I don’t ascribe kindness to the IRS so I don’t expect they’ll be cutting anyone any slack in this regard. From the IRS’ perspective, if the Supreme Court says it’s NOT a penalty but a tax, they will agree that it’s a tax—and they WILL go after it.

If you posted that “non-enforcement” section of the bill for some other reason, let me know.


29 posted on 01/12/2014 6:12:55 PM PST by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
RE :”Sorry, but I guess you missed the point I was trying to make. The part of the law you were pointing out said any penalties charged under the law couldn’t be “forcefully” collected. But the Roberts decision said that there ARE NO PENALTIES being charged. Taxes are charged to the non-compliant.”

They didn't rule that. That's ridiculous.

They ruled that the fines are constitutional under congresses power to tax,

They didn't change them into anything different and certainly didnt rule that the IRS can ignore that part of the law forbidding them from punitive action. The ruling upheld that part of law if anything.

Why are you trying to scare Americans into submitting to Obamacare anyway? That is counter productive.

30 posted on 01/12/2014 7:19:26 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Well, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. You believe that the Obamacare Mandate is enforced by “penalties” and therefore they cannot be forcefully collected. You believe that because the legislative language actually says that. You believe that we are living in a rational America now.

I believe that we are, in essence, living (hopefully only temporarily) in a “bizarro-America” where our supreme court says the Obamacare Mandate is enforced by a tax and not by a penalty. Like I said, we’ll have to see what the IRS does (in 2015) to folks who somehow “refuse” to pay the mandate tax as part of their 2014 tax returns. You think the legislation precludes the IRS from going after them and that the IRS will therefore not go after them; I think otherwise since we’re living in bizarro-America (until Obama is out of office and replaced by a conservative Republican) and the IRS will ignore that part of the law since they now claim the financial sanction applied to folks who ignore the Obamacare mandate is NOT a penalty, it’s a tax.

Feel free to have the last word. I’ll not reply to it. I’ll simply wait until 2015 to see how this shakes out. Since Obama and his IRS ignore or misinterpret any law they disagree with I think I know which way it will go.


31 posted on 01/12/2014 8:23:27 PM PST by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
RE :”Well, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. You believe that the Obamacare Mandate is enforced by “penalties” and therefore they cannot be forcefully collected. You believe that because the legislative language actually says that. “

I don't have to believe in this case. I can read.

‘(2) SPECIAL RULES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES- The Secretary shall not—
‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’.

What the Obama-care law text REALLY says on IRS enforcement of the personal Mandate fine/tax

32 posted on 01/12/2014 8:28:41 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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