Skip to comments.Why Roberts did it
Posted on 07/01/2012 7:57:19 PM PDT by trekdown
click here to read article
I have a feeling this isn’t going to go away as quickly as John Judas Roberts had hoped.
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?????
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 Courts 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.
I was calling him (in)justice, but Thief Justice just rolls off the fingers better.
Now, I am not trying to start trouble here, I am merely trying to engage in discussion ( this is just a disclaimer, not an accusation )
In a court of law, sworn testimony is not only admissible, but is considered fact unless reputed.
The four libs opinions carry little to no weight. The majority opinion does. And the majority opinion says the commerce clause does not apply here.
The reason the libs are so damn upset (even though the law was upheld) is the limitations just put upon them via the commerce clause.
Now, you and I both know this clause has been abused since roosevelt ( another damn commie )and every premier social program passed since then has been based upon this.
This is now gone. Finished. Kaput.
The old bag ginsbergs visible disgust in roberts opinion proves this.
roberts used the law and sworn testimony to arrive at this decision.
This particular part of the decision is a HUGE victory in the war against socialism. Time will tell just how huge this actually is.
roberts did not send this back to the congress. He sent it back to the people. Now it is our turn.
“I respect Krauthammer’s mind,”
Until about a year ago, I respected his mind about 90% of the time. Now... not so much. He’s been wrong (unconservative) on several issues lately. To hear him pompously pontificate ... blah blah blah ... assuming we all think he’s wonderful makes me nauseous.
“And the majority opinion says the commerce clause does not apply here.”
The other 4 idiots in the majority opinion dissented from that, so the reporting goes! roberts stands alone. It means nothing.
You completely misunderstood my intention. The best thing for the country is to remove from office those who support ObamaCare, starting right at the top.
I believe Roberts had an ulterior motive behind his decision, part of which was to generate anger and attention towards defeating ObamaCare through the legislative process.
Instead the anger is directed at himself.
Not even close.
One more lib on the Court and the Commerce Clause will come back with a vengeance. The libs don't care about Roberts opinion and won't respect it in the future if they are able to wrest control of SCOTUS.
We hang by a thread and Roberts is not helping by making his Rodney King approach to jurisprudence superior to adherence to the Constitution. Roberts attempt to become the second coming of Justice Marshall is an epic failure.
bump for later
It does look like that. But actually a precedent for Roe was slyly established several years earlier in Griswold v Connecticut.
Griswold was the camel's nose under the tent in establishing the highly particularized "right to privacy" --you know, that right that isn't spelled out anywhere in the Constitution?
Griswold was a case manufactured by the Left. A couple of fake plaintiffs were engaged to get themselves in trouble with an obscure law in CT, banning sale of certain "birth control" products. CT's birth control law was never enforced. The phony plaintiffs basically had to demand the attention of law enforcement to their illicit act, in order to create this tailor-made case.
(The creation of phony plaintiffs is one of the Left's favorite tactics to force new judge-created law -- it was also used in the Scopes "Monkey Trial" in TN, the Lawrence v Texas case that was used to strike down allstates' laws against homosexual behavior, and in Roe v Wade itself. As most of us know, the original Roe, Norma McCorvey, has admitted she was a fake plaintiff.)
So it was Griswold in which SCOTUS first found its imaginary right-to-privacy in the Constitution.
Of course the court has never found a right to privacy that extends to your personal finances. FedGov has unlimited power to trample your privacy in any way that its tool, the IRS, wishes.
Elderly people (including me) should only go to the Doctor (really just emergency care) when major problem occur, not minor problems
Are you aware that emergency care is the most expensive variety of care you can get? That routine visits to fix the “little” things is relatively cheap? That routine visits keep the “little” things from becoming “big” things.
I understand where you are coming from, you sound exactly like my dad (RIP), who passed 4 years ago at 82 from a very treatable condition, that went untreated because he thought like you. It worked exactly as he planned .... heart attack and dead before he hit the floor.
Some time ago, a Freeper told me that the Supreme Court okayed the feds opening and searching through a package sent through the mails. Naif that I was, I had assumed that the Court wouldn't have because of that right to privacy. She supplied me with the name of the case and I saw that I was wrong.
(I can't remember the name of the case, but it was decided in 1984.)
In a case like that, and cases that involved financial privacy where the Supreme Court decided with the feds, the Court had only two options:
a) Ignoring Griswold and Roe, and thus implicitly declaring that the reasoning behind those decisions was just ad-hoc malarkey;
b) Taking the right to privacy into account, but stating that one or more prerogatives trump it. I.e., "compelling interest," or some such.
At the time, I just wrote it off in a manner that you did - i.e., "Just-Us" rides again.
But, the Roberts Obamacare decision brought up someting else. Therein, Roberts went out of his way to portray the Supreme Court as just an 'umble interpreter of the Constitution. Fain that it assumes the prerogatives of the legislative and/or executive branch, right?
And that gave me an idea. There is a definite inconsistency in. re. the "right to privacy" over time in Supreme Court decisions. That inconsistency can be used if Congress were ever in the frame of mind to recriminalize abortion. There are two options:
a) If subsequent Courts ignored the "right to privacy" in subsequent decisions, the government can argue that Griswold and Roe were illegitimate, on the grounds that subsequent Supreme Courts affirmatively rejected them as precedents in later privacy decisions;
b) If a trump phrase like "compelling interest" was used to euchre out Griswold and Roe, any such abortion law need only include the exact same trump phrase in the legislation itself. Eg, "The Congress has found that there is a compelling interest in...[recriminalizing abortion.] The Congress affirms that [add close paraphrase of Roberts' 'umble disclaimer]...[then come the meat of the law]
Then, once the law is challenged, the government need only cite all of those subsequent decisions where the right to privacy was either ignored or trumped away. Like that 1984 decision whose name I forgot, like any decision that nixed the right to privacy in financial affairs.
Since the rule of precedent, stare decisis is the foundation of law, Congress taking this approach would have some of the Supreme Court justices squirming. They'd read, right in the law, definite references to the Court's own inconsistencies on the right-to-privacy matter. They'd also read a definite reference to the Obamacare decision - namely, Roberts washing his hands of the matter. If phrased and defended skillfully, the government could manuever the Supremes into eating the Court's previous words.
Granted that this approach is more complex and sneakier than the other option the Obamacare decision left open - namely, "tax" anyone having an abortion and "tax" even more heavily anyone providing an abortion. Nevertheless, it makes for a good discussion point.
I should add an advance warning. If the pro-life movement goes either route, some of the support for any such measure will definitely be cynical. Some supporters will be disgusted civil libertarians and ObamaTax opponents who want to maneuver pro-abortion liberals into supporting a Constitutional amendment limiting Congress' power to tax and/or enshrining a right to privacy in the Constitution explicitly. In other words, some will want to use the threat of it as a bludgeon to get Progressives to disgorge some of their political gains over the decades.
"You want that benighted abortion bill to go away? Well, here's what you do. Just support this here Article of Amendment and get all your boys and gals to jump on the bandwagon. I'll do the same on my end. Once it passes, those wicked socons won't bother you again."
As the old saying advises, "Remember the risk."
You can't possibly repeal Obamacare with Obama in office. You can't get the president to sign the repeal. Why do you think I have been SCREAMING for a solid year that we need to put Romney in as president. You have a massive parade of Freepers lead by Jim Robinson saying they will never vote for Romney. If the nation's conservatives all feel that way, then they will hand Obama a 2nd term, Obamacare repeal is impossible, and Obamacare becomes the PERMANENT law of the land. It will be politically impossible to repeal once implemented because they will be too many leeches collecting from it.
I have been screaming for a year that Romney will win the GOP nomination, and we have to hold our noses and vote for him, abortionist and all. And yet you have this huge contingent here replaying "I will never vote for Romney". It is insane. Getting rid or Obama and repealing Obamacare is all that matters. Of course afterward, we still have TSA, EPA, Education, Energy, Global Warming, and Agenda 21 to deal with.
But first and foremost is repealing Obamacare, which REQUIRES getting rid of Obama. I have said 100 times that the USA cannot survive a 2nd Obama term. I am consistently on record saying that.
You inferred things I never wrote. I wrote that no US DOJ would blatantly go after the SCOTUS Chief Justice on the eve of a highly political ruling.
I said NOTHING about MY views on illegals. How the hell you could read what I wrote and infer that I am for overturning immigration law is baffling, unless you have been drinking heavily. Then I can understand your slander.
Go back and re-read my post. I defy you to quote where I even hinted at the suggestion to ignore the nation’s immigration laws.
Wow! For a solid year? When there were actual Conservatives during that time running such as Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, heck even Santorum, who destroy obamneycare, and you were shilling for the guy who invented obamneycare?
For a solid year you were hawking the liberal RINO? And here you are trashing Jim Robinson on his front porch about Conservatives?
Wow! Just wow!
Ah, sorry myself. Ignore my scathing response as I was baffled it was meant for me. You clarified it isn’t. So sorry about the confusion.
The Free Republic software is really deficient. You can’t put anyone on ignore and you can’t delete your old posts. I think many of us make comments in the heat of the moment that we would delete upon reflection. I also make inaccurate statements that live on in infamy because I can’t edit incorrect posts.
I will donate $100 to FR the day we have an ignore option, and anther $100 the day we can delete and edit our posts.
Remember guys, we have to play with the hand of cards dealt to us. Right now it is Romney. Surely I would have preferred Newt or Perry or Ricky but they did not get enough votes and my #1 pick, Cain dropped out.
First requirement of a candidate is to win elections. Sharon Angle-NV, O’Donnell-DE, Hoffman-NY23 were all good conservatives, but they lost elections. Now they have zero power to change ANY laws.
You may. Not me. I'll vote for Romney but that's the last evil I'll ever vote for, greater or lesser.
Once I pull the lever on Romney, the next day I go to the county elections office and change my vote affiliation to independent.
I could have voted for any of the other candidates in the slate we started with. And it ended up being Romney.
I could have voted for MANY of the candidates in the slate in the last presidential election, but McCain?
Who's next? Chaffee? Snowe? Not me. If this is the best that the Republican Party can come up with for candidates, then it's useless and I'll have no part of it henceforth.
I'm here to tell you: EVERY CONSERVATIVE WHO VOTES FOR ROMNEY IS GOING TO REGRET THEIR VOTE 4 YEARS FROM NOW!
WHere do you think Romney is gonna do anything different? He gonna give us conservative justices? Yeah sure. We got gay marriage because of Romney. We got Obama/RomneyCare because of Romney.
If the Republican Party wants to do their part in torpeoing America, I'll have no part of it. I'm out.
Don’t misunderstand me. I never supported Romney for GOP president. I supported Palin and prayed she would run, until she eventually stabbed me in the back and bailed out.
What I had been screaming for the past year was that the fix was in and the GOP-e was going to shove Romney down our throats. Doing so, we would face a choice of lessers of evil, and facing that, we had to get rid of Obama, even if it meant electing a liberal Romney do do so.
So no, I never supported Romney’s candidacy. In fact I voted for Santorum in the California primary, even as Romney was locking up the GOP nomination.
But despite my distaste for Romney, it became obvious to me the fix was in and the election was going to be between a liberal Romney and a communist radical Muslim traitor, Obama.
Given that choice, I have to take the liberal over the radical Communist Muslim.
You may be right, but I am not ready to extrapolate Romney based on whatever his agenda was in possibly the most liberal state in country, Massachusetts, during his tenure as governor. I still have hope for a right leaning Romney.
But regardless of where Romney would lead the country, I am 100% certain that Obama has 100% socialist liberal agenda.
If you think that Roberts followed the Constitution then you are a Progressive.
How in any way can you interpret the Constitution to mean that the Federal Government (limited by the Constitution) has any power to force individuals in all of the sovereign states to fork over payment for NOT enjoining in a service!
If you can look at the writers of our Constitution and come up with anything resembling such an interpretation, lay it on me.
We are either a Republic or we are a Federally controlled Democracy! Seems that way too many think that we are the latter.
If you support the income tax then you are a Progressive. It's a central plank of the Communist Manifesto. Do you think America can adopt such foolishness without a corresponding loss of Liberty?
The real enemy here is the 16th Amendment. It allows non-apportioned direct taxation. It is a huge loophole through which Tyranny can pass unobstructed, under the guise of Congress' taxation power.
Since the 16th Amendment was (ostensibly) ratified, the People have always been potential slaves. I disagreed with Roberts, too, and he could have joined the dissent and made it the majority.
But to think that Roberts suddenly forgot who he was and had no basis for his ruling is a little naive.
If we don't like 0bamacare's individual mandate, and if we don't want to see laws like it in the future from Democrats and Republicans, then we MUST repeal the 16th Amendment. It's that simple.
The 16th Amendment, and all taxing power which flows from it, is a Tyrannical abomination which no conservative should ever support. It is, in a word, slavery.
Sorry, but the Constitution and amendments allow for collection of taxes for the operation of government and protection from outside entities. That is needed and understood by most folks.
What is NOT allowed (should not be allowed) is specific taxes (equal protection clause) of certain individuals in the sovereign states. Unfortunately, our Congress and so called Representatives don’t give a damn about the Constitution so they tax as they want.
I agree about the 16th Amendment. Just another loophole for our tax-a-holic Representatives to plow through. Laws are for the little people and the Representatives could care less.
No, I don’t think Roberts did not think through his decision (political), he did what he thought was best for him. He just forgot that he swore an oath to the Constitution. That used to mean something!
Um, rewriting the law in that manner is long-established judicial precedent. Roberts didn't do anything new. He simply pointed out, arguably correctly, that, under the 16th Amendment, Congress has the power to levy non-apportioned direct taxes. The American People have always been subject to enslavement via the income tax ever since the 16th Amendment was (ostensibly) ratified.
Do you really think that America can enact central planks of the Communist Manifesto, such as the "progressive" income tax, and not suffer a severe loss of Liberty? Without the 16th Amendment, 0bamacare is irrefutably unconstitutional.
Let's repeal it and guarantee that no Congress, present or future, Democrat or Republican, will ever possess such illegitimate power again.
I was initially perplexed at the ruling as well, and still feel that Roberts could have joined the dissent and made it into the majority, but after reading this article I had an epiphany, and now I see that the 16th Amendment is the actual culprit responsible for justifying 0bamacare's individual mandate. It couldn't be more Tyrannical.
The power usurped under the Commerce Clause pales in comparison to the slavery which is enabled by the 16th Amendment.
I wish it weren't true, but it is, and I feel that our righteous anger is better focused on that central tenet of Communism, as opposed to Chief Justice Roberts. That's my humble opinion. Flame away...
I didn’t intend to be redundant in my two posts above. I though that one of them was on a different thread...
Central planks of the Communist Manifesto are not "just another loophole..."
Income taxation is absolutely heinous in so many ways. It's beyond the scope of this thread to enumerate them all, but the "progressive" income tax is not a central tenet of Communism for some minor reason. It is essential for taking power and property away from free individuals...
How do you suppose that we support an Army or do you suppose that we have none?
Huh? There were and are numerous other types of taxation which are not nearly as Tyrannical. What a question...
Ah, yes, what a question! You could raise revenue by taxing imports from other countries (of course they would do the same and create havoc with exports and eventually taxes on revenues).
We could raid farms and gather crops to sell at a profit but that would ruin the farming industry.
We could raise revenue by taxing all outside businesses (out of country) but of course they would do the same to balance out the rates and our industries would fail.
So just what the hell are you talking about?
I’m going to assume that you’ve gone to bed - it is late. I do expect that you will provide your tax solution at a later date though. I really want to understand your thinking here.
It does have to provide for both Federal Government and the protection of America (I’d guess 60-100 billion annually at minimum).
So what and where would you tax?
We've managed to field pretty decent armed forces throughout our history without using the PROGRESSIVE income tax to fund them. Ever heard of consumption (sales) taxes? How about war bonds? Tariffs? Excises? Apportioned direct taxes?
Since providing for the common defense is one of the most important functions of the Constitution, funding for our armed forces is top priority. There are any number of ways to do that without relying on Tyrannical income taxation. It's like saying "we need to implement central tenets of Communism in order to have a proper army." Also, in peacetime, we don't need a large standing army in any event.
What income taxes (as well as fractional reserve banking, another facet of Communism America has adopted) are "needed" for is funding socialism: deficit spending, the welfare state, and all the other aspects of unnecessary, non-minimal government.
Quite honestly, I can't even believe I'm wasting my time addressing such a naive premise. How did you ever form such an unnecessary linkage between the existence of the income tax and having a decent army? It just does not follow. Let it go.
To reiterate: the "progressive" income tax is a central plank of the Communist Manifesto, and there is no validity to the assertion that America couldn't have a decent armed forces without it.