Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chief Justice John Roberts gives Obama and Democrats a Trojan Horse
The Washington Times Communities ^ | June 29th, 2012 | Amanda Read

Posted on 06/30/2012 11:51:37 PM PDT by SincerelyAmanda

After wounding socialism, why didn’t Roberts go for the glory and slay Obamacare while he could? Chief Justice stepped aside to let We the People do the honors.

(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: AMERICA - The Right Way!!; History; The Hobbit Hole
KEYWORDS: bullchit; mittromney; obamacare; roberts; ropeadoberoberts; ropeadope; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

1 posted on 06/30/2012 11:51:59 PM PDT by SincerelyAmanda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

I think Roberts doesn’t want the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of the laws of the land. That would be the implication of his ruling. That is the Founder’s intents when they created the Supreme Court.

Congress is supposed to decide these things, not the Supreme Court.


2 posted on 07/01/2012 12:15:40 AM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

Very good.

Thank you.

Read and study it.

This is the ;largest rope a dope in the history of mankind.

“They fail to realize that the sparks and flickering they see is Roberts trapping them in a ring of fire.”


3 posted on 07/01/2012 12:19:07 AM PDT by NoLibZone (We must get down on our knees each day and thank God that McCain/Palin didn't win in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

EXCELLENT FIRST POST.

Thank you.


4 posted on 07/01/2012 12:26:53 AM PDT by NoLibZone (We must get down on our knees each day and thank God that McCain/Palin didn't win in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

Oh bull honey...


5 posted on 07/01/2012 12:29:22 AM PDT by wardaddy (John Roberts collection of Sally Quinn's panties just got a hefty contribution this week..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

so why do we even have a supreme court if they’re just a rubber stamp?


6 posted on 07/01/2012 12:36:39 AM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

Welcome to Free Republic.


7 posted on 07/01/2012 12:39:15 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda
All that is necessary for the triumph of stupidity in the world is for intelligent people not to ridicule it until it slinks away in abject humiliation.

With that in mind, here's what I think of this idiotic nonsense:

Legal Jedi-Master-Super-Genius John RobertsTM explains it all:

And a REAL Conservative's take on all those Beltway pundits suffering from Battered Conservative SyndromeTM who can't bring themselves to admit to that they've just gotten the Full Sandusky (slapping sounds and all):

And finally:

Please. PLEASE. PUH-LEASE stop posting this imbecilic nonsense about John Roberts' incredible sleight of hand: It isn't even entertaining as humor.

8 posted on 07/01/2012 12:39:43 AM PDT by FredZarguna (When you find yourself arguing against Scalia and Thomas, you AREN'T a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

John Mccain view Senators as rubber stamp to the Executive (for picking judges). So why do we have 3 branches of government again?


9 posted on 07/01/2012 12:40:22 AM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda; Twink
A very nice read, Read. (lol)

But since the PPACA advocates scarcely read their own piece of legislation, they probably didn’t read Roberts’ opinion either. In mob-mentality fashion, they see that four of their own kind appeared in the majority vote plus the word “upheld” and rejoice that the highest court in the land has put conservative opposition to flames.

You sound somewhat in your article like me here...Time and a better, closer reading of the decision should help everyone form a better conclusion.

However, as you rightly noted, they probably didn't bother reading the decision.

Related from Friday Ping, Twink.

10 posted on 07/01/2012 12:50:37 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda
Chief Justice stepped aside to let We the People do the honors.

Can we all stop grasping at this straw?

"We the People" elected this socialist turd in the first place. If Roberts had some brilliant, master plan that involved the voters saving the day, he's a dufus.

11 posted on 07/01/2012 12:52:13 AM PDT by Washi (Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse, one head-shot at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

Trojan Horse? Imagine the Bills coming out of any would-be Socialist dominated House or Senate from now on.. The Socialists will be empowered by this decision to go rogue on America worse than they already have. Not unlike the Caliphate since Obama’s taken office. Roberts failed to enforce the Constitution, plain and simple.


12 posted on 07/01/2012 12:54:54 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Your reply smells like liberal angst instead of conservative consideration.
Perhaps you could objectively critique her analysis instead of doing nothing more than posting imbecilic and childish pics.
13 posted on 07/01/2012 12:55:54 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda
Roberts says it's OK for the Guvmint to tell me I have to buy something I don't want, or pay a tax greater than the price of the product I reject?

Sincerely Amanda, Read my lips: THAT AIN'T FREEDOM!

Please take your big government obfuscation and peddle it somewhere else.


14 posted on 07/01/2012 12:57:42 AM PDT by 867V309
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
Imagine the Bills coming out of any would-be Socialist dominated House or Senate from now on..
Yes, imagine that! A tax bill that had to be called a tax bill instead of it being promoted as a lie from the outset.

How novel!

I just can't, however, imagine a potential would-be Socialist dominated House or Senate openly and honestly stating that they were passing a tax bill...just like with that PoS bill that got passed into law and is being hung around their necks.

15 posted on 07/01/2012 1:01:44 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda
Cute...Chief Justice Roberts pulled an Elrond.
16 posted on 07/01/2012 1:06:55 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Washi

it was ronerts sworn duty to slay the dragon and he did not, he ran away...


17 posted on 07/01/2012 1:08:09 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda


18 posted on 07/01/2012 1:09:12 AM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

I’m sorry but re-writing a bill from the bench is just as grievous as legislating from the bench.

IMO.


19 posted on 07/01/2012 1:11:19 AM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

Interesting read, thanks for posting.


20 posted on 07/01/2012 1:16:03 AM PDT by 1035rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch
I’m sorry but re-writing a bill from the bench is just as grievous as legislating from the bench.

Here is the syllabus...

@NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS

What, in your opinion, was "rewritten" from the bench?

21 posted on 07/01/2012 1:25:38 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Her "analysis" has been shredded by so many Conservatives who actually understand the law, that my own contribution would be quite meager.

But, since you ask, with the kind copyright waiver permission of Fred Zarguna (me) I present to you a thoughtful demolition of her Bonfire of Inanities which I wrote on the morning of the putative "decision" and posted on this very web site in response to WaPo writer George Will. [The current blogger's take is not substantially different from his.]

=========================================================

Attempts by Sophists such as Will to spin this into a "win" are nearly as amateurish, silly, ill-reasoned and internally inconsistent as Roberts' opinion for the Majority.

Nearly.

The decision is predicated upon a notion that the authority to tax may be based on nothing more than Congress' Constitutional authority to tax under the first article of the Constitution. However, the authority itself derives from a requirement that Congress may only raise taxes to achieve what is "necessary and proper" in the pursuit of its specifically enumerated powers. This is made clear in Article I, which adds a further requirement: that the enumerated powers are further restricted to only those things which promote the "general welfare."

Example: Congress is granted the specific authority to create post offices. Therefore, it may raise taxes to obtain that effect (necessary and proper) but it may not create a post office just for the benefit of Fred Zarguna (because it would be solely for my benefit and a few of my friends, and would not promote the general welfare of the United States.)

Therefore, it was incumbent upon proponents of this law to place their finger upon some part of the Constitution wherein an authority to regulate health insurance companies was granted. Grasping at a legal straw, the liberals reverted to an old favorite: the Commerce Clause. But the Court ridiculed that notion, and Roberts himself made it clear that theauthority for the mandate could not come from that source. Nor could it come from the "necessary and proper" advancement of the whole act, as again, Roberts himself argued.

But now, we have a FAR larger problem than we had before, because Roberts -- writing on behalf of his liberal majority -- has claimed that the authority to tax for any purpose whatsoever is contained in the Constitution, a laughable position that even the most rabid liberal has never (until now) advanced as a legal theory. The argument is either circular (you have the authority to tax because taxation itself is necessary and proper) or advances a claim concerning implied powers under general welfare which has never before been proposed.

In effect, all restrictions on the legislative power have been swept away by this decision. Any law is now Constitutional provided only that a fine, penalty or tax is imposed.

Yes, it's that bad. But it actually gets worse...

Because hitherto, the Court would not even have granted Cert in a tax case until someone with standing came forward to challenge the law. In fact, the Court could not do so even if it wanted to, because of the Anti-Injunction Act, and no one will actually be "taxed" by the mandate until 2014. In the instant case, the Court has used thoroughly tortured logic to claim that: 1) Even though the mandate is a tax 2) the AIA doesn't apply, because Congress did not believe it was a tax when it was passed.

Howzzat again?

That's right, the majority has not only destroyed the concept of limited government with this ruling, but the Court itself actually broke the law in even allowing the case to be heard.

But wait, it gets even worse...

Because Roberts' opinion also holds that even though the "tax" is not the kind of tax permitted in the first article of the Constitution, and even though the "tax" is also not a tax on incomes covered by Amendment XVI, it is a valid tax (of what kind he does not say) and the existing case law already permits it.

This is an entirely new doctrine: preemptive Constitutionality. No Court has ever ruled in the past that the provisions of a law which as yet affects no one is Constitutional/Unconstitutional. Roberts' opinion signals exactly that. (See my previous posts for a quote from the majority.)

Bottom line: this is the Dred Scott/Roe v. Wade of the 21st Century. June 28th, 2012: A date which shall live in Infamy.

It's really that bad.

Consider yourself answered. And consider your blog-pimping friend answered as well.

22 posted on 07/01/2012 1:26:03 AM PDT by FredZarguna (When you find yourself arguing against Scalia and Thomas, you AREN'T a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

John Roberts as jujitsu super master. This is the most breathtakingly moronic piece of desperately wishful thinking modern conservativism has ever engaged in. It hurts to watch it.


23 posted on 07/01/2012 1:28:55 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Some men just want to watch the world burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

Great article. Thank you.


24 posted on 07/01/2012 1:42:47 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.” If the Government hadn't presented this second argument they wouldn't be in the fix they're in now with trying to still call it a penalty instead of the tax it was always intended to be.

Snip...

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

...it is a valid tax (of what kind he does not say) and the existing case law already permits it.

A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. You don't agree that it's a capitation tax and such are authorized in the Constitution?
25 posted on 07/01/2012 2:01:27 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Nope... A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.”
Not a capitation tax. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.
Not a direct tax either.

Perhaps an excise tax?

26 posted on 07/01/2012 2:33:33 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.

What's that old liberal cry...Tax the rich!

27 posted on 07/01/2012 2:37:55 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

Well, follow the links on this and be even more horrified that serious consideration is being given to this piece of drivel.

A twenty-something, home-schooled blogger, who just finished ONE course in Constitutional Law, “prayed about” this decision and was handed this conclusion (by God apparently).

http://amandaread.com/


28 posted on 07/01/2012 2:38:37 AM PDT by garandgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

Wow! Too bad John Roberts didn’t know about all this good he did. If he did he could come back from hiding on that island he said he’s going to.


29 posted on 07/01/2012 2:42:19 AM PDT by tsowellfan (http://www.cafenetamerica.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Yes, but the Supreme Court is suppose to strike down bad laws, and this is a bad law.


30 posted on 07/01/2012 2:46:00 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
Yeah, he'll leave decisions to the people's reps as long as they don't express it through their state legislatures.

“Arbitrary and capricious” is how the appeals court described the Arizona law and Scotus agreed. This despite that law went through the committee process, had floor debates, etc.

OTOH, Obama was written in the dark of night by Marxists moles, without hearings, no floor debate, and not a single rank and file Congressman or Senator even knew what it contained.

So which law was arbitrary and capricious? A pox on Scotus and ‘F all rats.

31 posted on 07/01/2012 2:46:00 AM PDT by Jacquerie (The American Revolution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

Capitation! Now here’s a starting point for a new look.

Had Obamacare merely established an annual tax of $2,300 on every citizen of whatever age and then provided a waiver upon presenting a current receipt for paid health care insurance premium, it would have been much simpler.

Also, such a straightforward approach would have doomed Obamacare from the get-go. It’s a tax.

The Dems needed their chicanery to get the bill “deemed” into law.


32 posted on 07/01/2012 3:12:55 AM PDT by plangent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Did he have to use a lie, that this is a tax, to effect it?


33 posted on 07/01/2012 3:19:34 AM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

bookmark


34 posted on 07/01/2012 3:42:19 AM PDT by samtheman (The Trillion Dollar ObamaCareTax definitely is a tax; just ask the US Supreme Court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

The way I see it, Roberts has made this year’s election a referendum on ObamaCare. If people want to get rid of it, they have to vote against it. Since it’s framed as tax, it’s quite unlikely it’s gonna return soon if it’s repealed.


35 posted on 07/01/2012 4:26:34 AM PDT by paudio (OTP: Why do people want to rehire a mechanic who clearly only made their car worse than before?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

Very good read. I have already posted here that I think that Chief Justice Roberts did a very brave thing, something rarely seen in public service today.


36 posted on 07/01/2012 4:28:34 AM PDT by Rearden (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

What role do judicial clerks play in judges decisions?

Could they not sway an opinion by editing via omission case and precedent research?


37 posted on 07/01/2012 4:30:58 AM PDT by Vinnie (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

How come when Roberts votes with the Conservative side he is a brilliant Constitutionalist?

This man was put on the bench because of his constitutional knowledge. If anything, of the 9, he might have been the only justice that actually looked at this rather than playing politics with it.

I fon’t agree with his decision. But that’s what it is. Now go to the voting booth, elect the Republican and have this changed by the will of the people.

Then when the RATS sue, which they will, SCOTUS can tell them to piss up a rope. And it would be 9-0.


38 posted on 07/01/2012 4:33:03 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (ABO 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

1. Elect solid majorities in all three branches.

2. Repeal ACA before the freshmen succumb to the Beltway.

3. Constitutional amendment to clarify Congress’ power to tax, i.e., negate the effect of Roberts’ Rule.

4. Then, and only then, has We the People taken the helm.

Otherwise, Roberts has sunk the Republic.


39 posted on 07/01/2012 4:40:30 AM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 867V309

Roberts never said any such thing. He said that it wasn’t his job to define what is, and what is not a sh*t sandwich. He reminded us that that duty belongs to those of us who vote.

What’s the matter, are you too lazy or too self absorbed to vote these criminals out on their asses?

Let’s try something different this year, instead of just going to the polls and casting your vote, this time try to find at least one person who doesn’t normally participate, and make sure that they do this time. Get them registered, drive them to the polls, talk to them as you should talk to your neighbors so they understand your point of view. Try to make them understand that this November will be the only opportunity we will have to get rid of this monster by electing people to the House, the Senate, and the White House who will make this their first priority as soon as they are sworn in.


40 posted on 07/01/2012 4:41:39 AM PDT by Rearden (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Washi

Amen.

I don’t know his reasoning any more than anyone else does, but he stuck it in us-——deep.


41 posted on 07/01/2012 4:43:05 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

I respectfully submit that you know not of what you speak.

It was the Court’s sworn duty to determine if the law was constitutional. They did that.


42 posted on 07/01/2012 4:45:12 AM PDT by Rearden (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

What an excellent article. Even if one doesn’t agree with Roberts, as I don’t (although I’m still chewing on all this stuff), you’ve done a great job of answering the question: just what the hell was he thinking?

And you’re just some kid in college? Wow, let’s hear it for bright futures.


43 posted on 07/01/2012 4:49:54 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garandgal
The Supreme Court was mistakenly seen by conservatives and liberals alike as the arbiter of the end of the Obamacare debate. The Court would either declare the PPACA “constitutional” or “unconstitutional,” and that would be the end of the story.

No one who understands the lawless and evil nature of the curse which occupies the federal government had even a fleeting delusion that Thursday's ruling would be the "end of the story". Either Amanda and her self-contained bubble of Beltway intelligensia haven't the slightest clue what this country is truly up against, or they've made a pact with it.

I didn't think the smarter-than-you crowd could top itself after Egypt. I was wrong.

44 posted on 07/01/2012 4:51:32 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Some men just want to watch the world burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane
so why do we even have a supreme court if they’re just a rubber stamp?

DING! Winner. The founding fathers created a framework for the Supreme Court, and Roberts FAILED to follow it!

The entire purpose of the USSC is to evaluate the laws that Congress passes and the President signs as written and passed against the Constitution.

The USSC takes the law as written and puts it up against the Constitution to determine whether or not the law is in agreement with, or violates the Constitution.

This is exactly where Roberts failed, and why the true Conservatives on the court expressed their own outrage in their dissenting opinion!

The role of the US Supreme Court has never been to re-write any law period. Yet, that is what Roberts and the liberals on the court did. They re-wrote the law to fit their needs in order to make it Constitutional.

Now, any talk about Roberts giving Conservatives a "gift" is complete, unadulterated bullshit and any talk of such is simply falling into the liberal lamestream media trap.

I'm frankly shocked to see so many on here falling for it.

I would rather the USSC have done it's job and let the political fallout land where it may than Chief Justice Roberts abscond his responsibilities via seeking approval of the lamestream media by attempting to de-politicize the court.

Roberts committed an act of cowardice not courage!

Now here are the hurdles we have to overcome this November:

1. Elect Romney. Like it or not, that's what we must do.

2. Turn the Senate over, giving Republican's at least 51 votes. 51 is the important number here since it takes 51 votes to over-turn any TAX in the Senate.

3. Keep the House of Representatives in Republican hands, and I'd say REPLACE BOEHNER as Speaker. I don't care that he's scheduling a symbolic vote (and let's face it, that's what it is) the week of July 9th. When it comes to repealing Obamacare, I doubt he has the backbone.

4. Pass legislation in the House & Senate to repeal Obamacare. There can be NO EXCUSES accepted from the Republican's if they have both houses of Congress and the White House. Once again, the Stupid Party has a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, it is on all of us to put intense pressure on the Republican's to keep their word.

5. Romney must sign the bill, putting it into Law. Again, intense pressure required to force him to do it.

6. Finally, anyone who doesn't believe that repealing Obamacare won't face a court challenge is serioulsy kidding themselves. Once 'benefits' start flowing, Obamacare will be impossible to repeal. Historically, the USSC has ruled that once benefits stop flowing, Congress simply can't "turn them off" .. this is exactly what the USSC did with Social Security.

This is the burden that Chief Justice Roberts put on each and every one of us, because he was too much of a COWARD to actually do his job.

Are we up to the task? Lord I sure hope so. I personally wrote my first political campaign contribution check in many years the day Obamacare was ruled Constitutional by this cowardly Supreme Court. Much as I hated donating to the Romney campaign, I wrote the check for the max individual amount and sent it in. I then signed up to help the campaign here locally and now have a bunch of signs to distribute.

Don't get me wrong: I don't like Romney. He wasn't my second, third, fourth or even fifth choice. This is however the hand we've been dealt, and I'd kick myself if I didn't do everything I personally could to remove and replace Obama and ObamaCare.

One last thing: We all know Obamacare implements the largest tax increase in the history of Civilization. I have stopped referring to it as "Obamacare." I now call it the OSHIT TAX.

Obama Supremes Health Insurance Tax.

When American's wake up after Labor day, that's exactly what they're going to be saying when they realize how much their taxes are going up due to the Bush Tax Cuts expiring and the OSHIT taxes kick in.

God Save America.

45 posted on 07/01/2012 4:52:46 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Correct, the Roberts Court just created a highway for congress to stick it to us and the repubs try to spin it like the highway is one way only. He took an unconstitutional bill, approved it and handed the power to Congress to force us to buy anything as long as it is a tax. Even if the election is won by repubs...think that will last forever? What items would the Repubs decide I should have to pay for? Chevy Volts? Rubbers? Roberts took the cowards way out and will never live this down. A pox on him.


46 posted on 07/01/2012 4:56:08 AM PDT by JohnD9207 (Mitt better grow a pair or this thing will be over soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
What, in your opinion, was "rewritten" from the bench?
Congress did not vote to pass a tax bill.

If it had been considered a tax bill, it's doubtful it would have ever made it out of committee. It certainly would never had been passed. And the courts would have refused to hear the case until the taxes began being applied.

He re-wrote the bill.

47 posted on 07/01/2012 5:04:57 AM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Cute...Chief Justice Roberts pulled an Elrond.

It should be noted that Elrond and the nation he lead ended up leaving Middle Earth.


48 posted on 07/01/2012 5:05:44 AM PDT by magooey (The Mandate of Heaven resides in the hearts of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

*


49 posted on 07/01/2012 5:11:36 AM PDT by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SincerelyAmanda

Bm


50 posted on 07/01/2012 5:12:17 AM PDT by Popman (When you elect a clown: expect a circus...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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