Posted on 06/28/2012 6:27:18 PM PDT by semantic
bflr
Yeah, glad you could manage something...not much but better than stiff on a slab...but at least you can still type pointless nonsense. Don’t puke on yourself now.
“Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.”
The dems will go on offense and quickly spin some talking points attacking Roberts for “incorrectly” calling it a tax. Barry won’t be giving any press conferences or take uncomfortable questions. Now we will get an endless stream of TOTUS speeches full of BS. Time will tell how much of it sticks.
I think I found the ONE shining light in this dark day!
Since barry is riding so high, doesn’t that place
hillary’s potential of ‘stepping in’ kinda moot now?!
Just a thought ~
How is this outcome somehow superior to threowing the whole kitand-kaboodle into the ash can?
Which is what would've happened had Roberts voted rationally...
Yeah, Obama is destoying my country, and Roberts is now complicit in it. I AM emotional, and I will continue to be. Countless of men and women sacrificed their lives for our freedom, and it was Roberts’ turn to stand up. Instead, he turned tail. Maybe he was blackmailed, but I won’t ever forgive him for selling out America and its awesome Constitution. Bob
Hmmm....
I cut Roberts zero slack. There is no silver lining. The last I checked, Obamacare still stands, and John Roberts has been party to selling out America. ALL he had to do was join the four real Americans, and eviscerate the whole damn thing. You are kidding yourself if you see this monstrous, irrational decision as a partial victory. Stop watching the incestuous talking heads on TV. They’re a bunch of dolts. Bob
Yeah. Wonderful. Social security is close to bankruptcy and Roberts truckled with the Democrats and masterminded another mandatory government Ponzi tax blackhole for my hardearned money.
If you come across anything you consider good news we can all just shoot ourselves. That will save you the trouble of posting and the Democrats can keep printing money until they run out of paper.
What dots? That John Roberts issued an edict to make their law legal on a technicality?
Why the hell would anyone care? I don’t care why would democrat voters care? Senses when do democrats hold their politicians accountable for lying or least of all “taxing”?
They see money & services taken from the pockets of other working men, and vote to increase it. They care not for the rights of any man and only for what they can take! The left leaning voters of this country have demonstrable this fact time and time again.
No matter what tyrant Roberts says on the matter, they will not treat “tax” as we would and already have.
Roberts broke the law, he rewrote the democratic act and declared the Government of the power to force anyone do anything it likes. He should be impeached and go down in history as one of the men who destroyed the American republic. As for us who desire liberty, A revolution may be our only salvation at this point. (Thanks to the Traitor John Roberts)
We can only pray that enough of our States have the Constitutional courage to defend us and our rights. This is a dark path indeed.
You might note that the Canadian healthcare system Started the same way with their Federal Government offering money(taken from other provinces) to subsides any such program within any provinces that created such a government run system.
Liberals know this, and you will regret it, as we lose our freedom one by one. This qubit means nothing except to force free-states to finance slave states.
“Spin it all you want but the monster lives.”
I haven’t made a comment about today’s decision but I have read numerous threads on FR about it.
Your nine words is all that is needed to explain what happened. We can boil it down just a little more - “The monster lives.”
Thanks for your post - it is exactly my feeling.
As the other Federal Justiced pointed out and the experence of the Canadain federation proves this is in fact anther letter as as dead as our Constitution.
The Decent wrote:
“Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.”
Frankly that means if we don’t play by federal rules we will be forced by the same lawless Federal Government to simply finance the communist programs of leftist states.
I cannot conseve how you can be so shorted sited and blind if it were not willfull..
I don't think so. It seems to me that Roberts and Kennedy may have swapped places for this one. Kennedy and the other four may have been ready to call the mandate Constitutional under the Commerce Clause and Roberts came to this deal to head that off.
We will see how this plays out. Republicans also ignore the important overturn of the medicaid mandate penalties on the states. That hurts Obama-care.
The idea that the entire bill would be thrown out was a complete fantasy. I never thought that would happen.
Kennedy and the other four may have been ready to call the mandate Constitutional under the Commerce Clause and Roberts came to this deal to head that off.
As speculation goes, yours is pure. The following speculation at least appears to have some basis, and is therefore more convincing:
“As legal scholars study the Supreme Court’s decision in the Obamacare case, more and more are concluding that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s dissenting opinion, striking down the law in its entirety, was once the majority opinion — and that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote at a late stage.
“As National Review’s Ed Whelan, the Volokh Conspiracy’s David Bernstein, and others are pointing out, the dissent refers to another opinion as “the dissent” and uses the pronoun “we,” as if speaking for the Court, as majority opinions typically do. In addition, the dissent focuses on the government’s arguments, rather than tackling the majority head-on. That suggests that a switch — most likely by the Chief Justice himself — may have come very late in the game, too late to offer more than the most cursory revisions of the opinions in the case.”
http://times247.com/articles/obamacare-dissent-suggests-roberts-switched-sides
More idiocy.
From the dissent by Alito,Kennedy,Scalia and Thomas:
“Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: “‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’” United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996) (quoting United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931)). In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act “adopt[s] the criteria of wrongdoing” and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax. Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20, 38 (1922).”
Over Alito?
Maybe Roberts wrote both opinions? My speculation at least answers the question as to why.
Did you even read Kennedy’s dissent? If what you say is true, then Kennedy was going to uphold the mandate on the basis of the Commerce Clause, but then, he switches with Roberts and suddenly does a 180 to argue in favor of striking the *entire* (not just the mandate) law. Sure.
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.