Posted on 07/01/2012 7:57:19 PM PDT by trekdown
Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is telling the nation: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I have a feeling this isn’t going to go away as quickly as John Judas Roberts had hoped.
TRUE!!!
That is not why he did it. He did it because he is a mixed up individual who thought he could use it as a legacy. He looked beyond the fact that there are people out there who can just about afford to put food on the table. They cannot afford to by health insurance. When they do not, here comes the IRS to take money from them that they do not have. He can easily afford it. He does not know what it feels like to be on the other side of the fence, although I do not think it would matter to him in what he did.
If that’s the case, I can’t blame him. - Obamacare was what the American people should have foreseen (along with all the other Obamastuff) when they elected him and the Pelosi/Reid Congress in 2006/2008. Can’t blame Roberts for not likely wanting to take the rap for overturning what Americans evidently ordered up then changed their mind. (American people are as changeable as the wind.)
Hey Roberts,,,,,It’s not YOUR court....it’s OUR COURT...it’s the People’s COURT.....it’s bot YOUR Court!!
BINGO!! His two ADOPTED children are from Ireland VIA LATIN AMERICA!!! WHY did they come thru LATIN AMERICA?????
Please...
Explain to me how roberts did not do his duty...
Please explain to me where he did not uphold the constitution...
Back in 94when the GOP took congress in complete election rout the GOP passed Term Limits and Line Item Veto both signed by democrat president Clinton
SCOTUS ruled both unconstitutional
I guess Roberts by Kraunhammer’s logic would have dissented
Unfortunately W's natural bent for selecting nominees is now seen to be deeply flawed since he appointed both Roberts AND Miers before (thankfully) a better choice was made to substitute for Miers.
Roberts main focus seems to be to become a Great Chief Justice. In pursuing that goal with the current hand of Associate Justices he has been dealt while ignoring the job's real objective of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, he is epically failing at both.
Roberts job: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Roberts failed to defend the Constitution by rewriting the law that was before the Court for consideration. He usurped the power of the Legislative Branch.
—SORRY! This is NOT the job of the Supreme Court! They are suppose to rule on Constitutionality, not anything else!—
Exactly. What is even more hilarious about this is Krautmeyer says, in one breath, “Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained.” and in the next breath, “I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that.”
What Roberts did, was to allow an unconstitutional law to remain while, at the same time, make the court the laughing stock of the nation.
Sometimes you have to do what is right and let the chips fall where they may. I don’t think they teach that in law school, though.
If I recall correctly, during the hearings, the dumbass lawyer for fubo stated, rather sheepishly, but clearly, that the penalty was indeed a tax.
Keep in mind this is sworn testimony.
With this in mind, how did he re-write what sworn testimony told him it was?
I have now long believed that we need a Privacy for Individuals Amendment to the Constitution. Unfortunately since the Constitution matters little these days, it wouldn't really help.
Krauthammer isn’t defending what Roberts did, he’s just trying to understand it.
I think his understanding in this case is pretty good.
Exactly what I was thinking.
I won't hold my breath for Williard to appoint better candidates than W's first two (Roberts and Miers).
I do hope that Romney can learn from this experience.
Deagle, I’m in for the rebellion.
I’m also in for free speech. It’s sad what a nasty pool of inbred thinking Free Republic is becoming. To hurl insults at posters of long standing who express thoughts contrary to your own is not conservatism. It’s fascism.
FR once was a place where we all knew that, in the big things, we were together, but we felt free to “think aloud,” throw out new ideas, speculate.
Now anyone who does that gets tarred with the worn-out label “liberal.” Is that really the best you can do?
A much more interesting poster called me a “dung beetle” last week. Unfortunately, it was a mistaken post, meant for another, but I did appreciate the creativity.
The four libs had their clerks write a long dissent where they claimed the Commerce Clause was more than adequate authority to pass the law.
Robert should have sent it back to Congress to rewrite to his standards. It's not Roberts' job to write law.
On Fox and Friends this morning, it was reported that (1) for weeks, Roberts intended to vote against Obamacare (we learned that a few days), and then changed his mind very recently; and (2) that he vigorously strong-armed Kennedy to change his vote as well, but Kennedy refused. (Supposedly, Roberts wanted a larger majority vote instead of what eventually occurred.) According to the report, the two of them aren’t on speaking terms now.
Blackmail is a convenient tool in the Chicago mob/political machine.
I'm angry as hell too and, like you, detest the "silver lining" spins.
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.