Skip to comments.Randy Barnett says Roberts’ tax power argument is “lame” but “easily fixed”
Posted on 06/30/2012 6:10:27 AM PDT by gusopol3
click here to read article
I would like to see all the opinions from this SCOTUS in order to compare the reasoning of all the Justices....Justice Roberts does seem a tad addled...does his ‘reasoning’ make complete sense? I could find nothing on their web page....
Correct. It’s the only conceivable, reasonable take. The fact that the Congress failed to portray it as a tax was the fault of Congress, and that fault should have been corrected by Congress, not a, or even 5, justices. Absolutely ridiculous, puerile decision.
Nothing is easily fixed in a world where the truth and the meaning of words have become plastic. In such a world thre is no law, only Elites and their subjects.
Roberts is on epilepsy meds that can mess up your mind. Michael Savage has been talking about this. What is galling is that Roberts is very pleased with himself and has been wisecracking about his idiotic decision that threw the other Justices for a loop. They were struck dumb.
“Georgetown Law professor”
My brain immediately translates that into “raving jackass”.
“So now, they can do just about anything as long as a tax penalty is involved. The taxing power just became the over-arching power in the Constitution. Heck, they could gut just about any other section as long as a tax is involved.”
Correct—with one huge BUT. Congressmen need to get re-elected, and hiking taxes of nearly any variety won’t get them there. Justices don’t need to run for office.
The problem is, we have ALLOWED it to happen. Just like everything else, nobody seems to care until it affects them.
It's way past time for another revolt. Our Founding Fathers would have started shooting by now.
Roberts was blackmailed over the illegal adoption of his kids:
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CHILDREN
The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES’ newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.
Superb. Especially #1, and someone mentioned this on Fox. Unsurprisingly, it went nowhere. Which leads to another question within your argument: If the bill originated in the Senate (and of course it did), is it even possible to call or rename (or adjudicate) the penalty a “tax”? Secondly, as has been mentioned here, could Obamacare have passed EITHER body as a “tax”? Elections surely have consequences, but Roberts’ ruling mooted those consequences. He had the PERFECT argument for returning the whole monstrosity to Congress. The fact that he didn’t is most troubling of all.
All five are excellent. How do all or even one proceed in a courtroom? As it is, they’ll be great arguments for repeal in the House, after the election.
Yes, like did any other opinion use the tax argument?
Obama will ignore the ruling about the commerce clause and coerce the States anyway if he has the instruments to do it. He’ll just cherry pick what laws to enforce and call it what he wants.
Yet the media claims that since Roberts sided with the liberals he therefore must not be an "activist judge". The job of a judge is not to "rewrite" laws.
The election will be decided long before any of these valid points could work their way through the courts only to be swatted away on another distortion. But Roberts just possibly may have been the grandest politician of all. If he changed the decision late, it may have been in response to the developing theme of Obozo to run against the Supreme Court. In the meantime, as has been often pointed out, Romney presents Obama with the dichotomy,”If it’s a mandate, it’s unconstitutional. If it’s a tax, you lied. “ “Taxation with misrepresentation.”
Most impressive — on the face of it, it appears you know what you’re talking about, and if so, then all the conclusions seem to point to one direction: REPEAL IT!
Quis custodiat ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves?
The ruling on June 28th probably ranks among the four or five worst decisions by the Supreme Court in its history. I don't see any upside. The only hope is that if Obama is defeated, some of the damage can be reversed...but it will probably be impossible to undo all of the damage.
We agree. I'd rank Roberts' ObamaCare decision alongside Dred Scott (no freedom for slaves in free states), Pace v. Alabama (no interracial marriage), Plessy v. Ferguson (yes to separate but equal), and Roe v. Wade (the federal constitutional right to abortion). This will do exceptionally grave long-term damage to our country.
Confirming Kagan for the court revealed how useless the nomination process is without even mentioning Soto. The fact that Kagan was allowed to vote was an incredible obvious conflict yet it happened without challenge. The court now has the credibility of the stuff they called us in basic training i.e., sinks to the ocean floor.
But the administration’s own attorneys stated that it is a tax during the oral arguments. Looks like Roberts simply took them at their word!
And now when Obama and his minions say it is NOT a tax, we can loudly call them liars WITHOUT the risk of the “racist” comeback sticking.
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.