Posted on 06/28/2012 1:47:53 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the Court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.
snip
Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the Court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
They do it anyway, John. Trying to curry favor from liberals never works.
It's not a tax, it is by its own terms a mandate and a punishment.
bookmark
So Roberts made Marxism the law of the land, because he wanted to seem “fair.”
How noble. NOT.
Because our government no longer respects We the People....Kraut is being too silly here...
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 saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.But what worries me is.... How will Romney care be any different?
We are screwed.
One's professional reputation is VASTLY more important than the well being of a nation and laws !
Trying to ensure that the SCOTUS is or is not perceived in any particularly partisan way is NEVER any way to rule on a decision. Its the CONSTITUTION, STUPID!
Roberts has appeared as a strict constitutionalist to me in the past so I’m willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. However, what I don’t understand, is how the other’s on the court whom I consider constitutionalist voted differently than Roberts. I just can’t get my head around it.
If the conservative dissent had agreed it was a tax, then I think even they would have upheld it.
The idea that the government can use the taxing power to affect people’s decision to purchase something - that bridge was crossed long ago.
It’s why people who buy a government motors battery-powered car pay less taxes than people who don’t.
Maybe Obama was planning on running against the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. If obamacare was overturned by “Bush’s guys,” Obama would use this as a pretext to dissolve the institution.
“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 saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you. “
Then who needs the Constitution? Let Congress vote on whatever they want and if they want to bring back slavery, take away guns, etc just let them and then we could vote them out again.
This is just nonsensical, pseudo-intellectual babble. Roberts did what he did because he is not an originalist, and he wanted Obamacare to stand for whatever his reasons might be.
If we have justices voting because they fear the court will be called partisan by the partisan opposition, then we are far worse off than I ever imagined.
The four leftist puppets have no problem, their “votes” are always predictable, and well in advance. You think it’s surprising that Kagan voted with the majority? The Wise Latina? The Over The Hill Bag? Breyer? These are the partisans on the Court, never an original thought, just puppets on a string.
We don’t respect the Court, the Congress, or the President. So what? If the court suddenly needs to present itself like politicians, then we should give them term limits too. The only point of giving them lifetime appointments is to help them remain apolitical. Well, they’ve given that up, so lets limit the amount of time they can keep screwing up.
The Republican Media is suddenly in love with their new found “silver linings” from this case. Every pundit wants to invent their own silver lining. Boehner has scheduled a repeal vote for 7/9/2012. I’m betting that if the establishment keeps medicating itself with silver linings there will never be another repeal vote; not in 2012, not in 2013.
Sorry folks—I’m beginning to think, more and more, that SOMEONE HAS SOMETHING on Roberts and/or someone in his family. And he’s being coerced. And, unfortunately, once you’ve given in to blackmail or coercion “they” own you.
This is all VERY sad for both Roberts and our country.
You’re right on Krauthammer’s take on Robert’s decision. But I’m not sure you’re right on Romney. He’s already come out and said he would ask for revocation if elected. If he goes back on that, he nullifies his most important campaign promise. Even for Romney, I have trouble seeing that happen.
“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 saying: Your job, not mine.”
That is ridiculous logic; it will be extremely difficult to overturn, and if already found constitutional then the overturning of it may be found unconstitutional - whether or not something is constitutional shouldn’t swing back & forth depending on how the political winds are blowing. Before anyone applies logic to this, consider what happened today: our government is no different than the Red Chinese government, and the “degrees” by which we were separating are fast disappearing. We have one-party rule, posing as two parties; it is an absolute hoax.
Chicago Way.
“We’d like to have a quiet chat with you about what it would take to make you an offer you can’t refuse...”
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.