No! He ess El Mega-Pollo
Posted on 06/28/2012 3:38:24 PM PDT by Kaslin
Rush, Levin, Salvage all wanted her out. She would not have done this.
Today, I lost all respect for John Roberts. To portray a penalty as a tax is twisted. The fine for not buying health insurance is just that, a fine. To fine somebody for not buying something is not Constitutional. He twisted the truth to give Obama something. He’s a huge clown!
Perhaps, his desire to not be Fosterized led to his decision.
What happened to John Roberts? Lee Doren pointed to an article by Ezra Klein that may explain Roberts' thinking. If Klein is right, Roberts is thinking very long term and playing the game at a higher level than the politics of the moment.
Okay, someone tell me if I am wrong here. Roberts decided to make certain that the issue was not decided under the Commerce Clause and invented the issue as a Tax. Deciding to not appear the Court look partisan, he sided with the Liberals. In doing so, he changes their argument that the penalty was not a penalty, but a tax, thus negating the Commerce Clause argument.
I have read that Roberts wanted to roll back congressional intrusion under the Commerce Clause. So be that.
Now, since the law is a Tax, and all Tax bills need to come from the House and not the Senate, then this bill is this bill now unlawful because of that procedure taken by Harry Reid so many months ago.
So can the bill now be rolled back because from whence it came?
Roberts is a liberal. Dont be fooled, we now have 5 liberals on the SC making a majority. As far as I am concerned, Roberts is an enemy of this country and the Constitution.
I think he just couldn’t stand the heat. Doesn’t have the conviction. Lack of character. The political pressure was as high as it gets with this ruling.
It was a tail between the legs move on his part.
Miers was a ridiculous nomination, and Bush paid for it with conservatives. She was Bush’s personal lawyer; not a judge, and not somebody with the gravitas to sit on the Supreme Court. Roberts was a much better choice, given only those 2 candidates.
I think that's moot. Roberts was nominated as an Associate Justice, but when Rehnquist died, Bush withdrew Roberts as an Associate Justice and renominated him as Chief Justice. Alito was then nominated as an Associated Justice.
Bottom line is that it's possible that Roberst would have been nominated anyway had Miers been nominated.
-PJ
Something else we shouldn’t forget. Roberts was NOT Bush’s pick. Roberts was William Rehnquist’s personal pick. He mentored and groomed Roberts from law school intern to Chief Justice.
Could certainly be. The wimp theory might turn out to be the best explanation of all.
Wishfull thinking.
Long term we can now be taxed on what we do not buy or do. Roberts was a fool. I wonder if it had anything to do with this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291473,00.html
What happened to Sandra Day?
“She would not have done this.”
Oh yes she would have. She would have been another Sandra Day O’Connor. Why do you think Democrats immediately signaled their willingness to confirm her?
No! He ess El Mega-Pollo
Alito replaced Miers, not Roberts.
Roberts was already confirmed as Chief Justice before Miers was ever nominated.
Thanks for the link. What I appreciate around here today are the folks actually trying to make sense of this, by analysis rather than throwing daggers at Roberts for being such a D@#$k.
Not that I didn’t yell “what an a##hole!!” at the TV this morning.
The “normalcy bias” another FReeper mentioned days ago comes to mind.
We are at the jackboot stage as Rush described and we are, everyone of us, paralyzed to resist.
Instead, we will vote for Obama II in November, and wonder why nothing changes.
God bless our WW II Americans who handed us so much, in the way of freedom and liberty, and delayed tyranny until we voted it in upon our own heads.
God forgive us.
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.