I like that meme:
Impeach Julia Roberts!
Posted on 07/05/2012 6:46:08 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
WASHINGTON -- I have a headache. I imagine you do too, if you have been trying to interpret the legalese employed by those legal sages who have pronounced on Thursday's Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. I would rather read the lyrics of a thousand rap composers than the anfractuous language of one legal sage.
Thanks, however, to Professor E. Donald Elliott of the Yale Law School I had a translator at my side, and I shall now hand down my judgment of the Court's decision on Obamacare, which all sensible Americans have abstained from reading in its entirety including B. H. Obama and the vast majority of denizens of Capitol Hill, including N. Pelosi. Some of these worthies even admitted as much. It fell to nine heroic souls garbed in black actually to read the law and to Chief Justice Roberts to write the decision for the exhausted majority.
As a result of his prestidigitation with prior precedents and with the famously vague English language, critics cannot dismiss Chief Justice Roberts as hyper-partisan. His fellow conservatives are highly agitated by his decision. His usual opponents, the Liberals, celebrate him. The Chief Justice dodged the bullet. I think you can call him crafty, as Chief Justice John Marshall was crafty all those years ago when he wrote the decision for Marbury v. Madison. Roberts' decision, the decision of the majority of the court, accomplished three things.
Firstly, it reiterated two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause. The expansion of the federal government's reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government. This offends certain Liberals such as our friends at the New York Times. Well, you win some and lose some, indignados.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
c’mon people... shut off your a.m. radio, and start to think for yourselves
I'm with you, Joe, but it will never happen.
If the members of the court are at all representative of the country, then 1 in 9 people are willing to do the hard work of reasoning through cases like this. The other 8 just go with their feelings.
I don’t necessarily disagree with Levin’s interpretation. But, if your only source of critical logic is Mark Levin, if I were you, I would strive to expand my horizons.
“The expansion of the federal government’s reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government.”
That may be true, but if so it’s only because the fight is long over. It was a threat 70 years ago and was allowed to win, though eventually we found out it did have a limit. Big deal, there’s another power down the way which has no limit, perhaps unless it threatens free speech or whatever else our betters in the court have arbitrarily decided to protect.
We may as well have Julia Roberts, with all this concern he has for his image.
“there are enormous loopholes that would likely apply to tax-exempt organizations (religious or not)”
The “mandate” penal-tax is a tax on individuals, not groups. Existing group exemption schemes don’t apply.
Yes but it is even a bigger failure by the court in that they said that they could rule part of it unconstitutional but did not have to rule it all unconstitutional even though there was no separation clause. Without the separation clause the whole thing should have been unconstitutional but the court just breaks its own precedence’s to mess with the citizens.
If the Government can call something a mandate and collect it by then calling it a tax, the individual should be able to call something a tax and then not pay it because it is an unauthorized mandate. Makes as much nonsense.
I once heard Shuttle astronaut Owen Garriott on my ham radio receiver, while sitting in a parking lot in St Joseph, Michigan.
I called his words an orbiter dictum.
We can bitch and moan all we want, but if we don’t get to the polls and vote Obama and the Democrats out of office, we can only expect WORSE things down the road.
“all of things you mention are pretty much inevitable in any sector of the economy where third-party payment is the normal course of affairs”
That’s only true if certain other conditions hold. For instance the third party payer system works well for auto insurance, but only because drivers are smart enough to pay for general upkeep on their own and save insurance for great, big expenses. The problem with health insurance is that people use it to pay for every damn thing, from dollar one at the clinic to spinal surgery. Which might be what you meant by “the normal course of affairs.”
But also there’s another party, a fourth party if you will, in your employer. So that people don’t even buy insurance directly, let alone healthcare. Then there’s the lack of competition, thanks to the fifth party that is the government.
First, Emmet, Dipwad’s decision dicta shouldn’t have to be translated. Second, if you need the likes of Prof Elliot (of Yale) to translate it for you - you’re an effing idiot.
http://www.acus.gov/acus-welcomes-back-an-administrative-and-environmental-law-thought-leader/
Apparently, you like being pissed on and being told it’s rain, dumbass.
LOL. Thanks.
There’s a basic flaw within your very appealing theory: if Roberts decision was made to allow the other Constitutional arguments against ObamaCare to advance ( this allowing further precedents on the CC to be locked in) then he’s going to do even MORE damage to the Court’s precious reputation.
Speculation is that Roberts decided as he did to avoid the perception that the Court has become partisan. In this he failed, just that Conservatives now see it as partisan, with Roberts having flipped to the Liberal/Dem side.
Imagine the reaction from the Left if, next term, their newfound hero votes with a majority to overturn Obamacare on different grounds ... The story will be that a weak Chief Justice caved to Conservative outcry. THAT only does more damage to the destruction alreade wrought.
With "Baldrick" Roberts on our side, how can we lose? /s
I like that meme:
Impeach Julia Roberts!
I have no doubt that Tyrell is on our side. But he's still way, way off the mark. Pretty much fantasy born of desperation.
Even if, a big if, the positive aspects he describes are in fact just that; they would only be of value if we had a government & executive branch that had the slightest desire to conform to the law. Obama et al are completely lawless. They will ignore what they dislike in the ruling, which is damn little.
This has been demonstrated repeatedly. He enforces laws that don't exit, refuses to enforce those that do....openly and with glee. He repeatedly ignores court rulings against his actions (think oil drilling the the gulf).
He had more or less stated before the ruling that if OC was declared unconstitutional he was going to implement it piecemeal via exec order and regulation.
We have a completely lawless and rogue chief exec and federal government. The courts are toothless and congress ball-less. Mitch "Obama's bitch" McConnell has contorted himself into a pretzel trying back down from his 5 minutes of political masculinity and admit nothing is going to happen after the election no matter how many Republicans get elected, including Mittens.
As bad as the immense amount of Judicial Law there is now out there on the books (Fed, State, Local, UN) that all citizens MUST know (ignorance is no excuse - now a Catch 22 if ever there was one), the Administrative Law takes it to a whole new (unconscionable) level.
Yeah. In what fantasy world does anyone think that a lawless President (who congress will not stand up to) gives a rat’s ass about a court ruling that claims to restrict the commerce clause?
Obama has openly violated law and the Constitution on a daily basis and suffered what terrible retributions from congress and the courts? Uh, right.
Nore of a plan from a cunning linguist.
(When is a tax not a tax? When it's a cucumber!)
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.