Posted on 07/09/2012 8:58:49 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Nev.) said Monday he “still has a very high opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts," despite Roberts opinion upholding the individual mandate in Obamacare as constitutional.
Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had been one of the earliest and most forceful voices in the Senate speaking out against the constitutionality of the individual mandate when it was first proposed in 2009.
On Monday, however, Hatch told CNSNews.com that Roberts “certainly had the right” to rule that the mandate is constitutional as a tax.
“Naturally, I would have preferred him to rule out the individual mandate,” Hatch said.
Hatch took part in an event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) on the aftermath of a June 28 Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to purchase insurance, based on the federal government’s power to tax and spend.
Following the event, CNSNews.com asked Hatch: “During the confirmation hearing for Chief Justice Roberts back in 2005 you said that he (Roberts) was a ‘perfect example’ of a judge who will not legislate from the bench. Would you take back that statement now?”
“No not at all,” Hatch said. “I have a pretty high opinion of Chief Justice Roberts and I understand what he’s done here. …”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Hatch is such an ass.
Orin is so saccharine sweet. He just can’t bring himself to say an unkind word about anyone...golly, gee-whiz.
Too bad he won. I was so looking forward to not having to endure his sickening platitudes.
What will Justice Roberts have to do for Hatch not to have a high opinion of him?
Then you, sir, are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Wrong. Roberst had the right to cast his vote to uphold the law. He had the right to assign to himself the writing of the opinion. But it is the decision that is the law; the opinion is just that. Just look at the gosh-awful thing that Earl Warren wrote in support of Brown I. Make no sense at all, if you look at the precedents. He simply created his own facts.
What a useless idiot.
Hatch is happy about the ruling on the Commerce Clause? Why is he happy? It doesn’t matter! The mandate-and-tax power that Roberts has given the government is just as damaging a precedent - if not worse. And does Hatch agree with Roberts that the only way Arizona can secure its border is to secede from the United States? And does Hatch agree with Roberts that lying about military medals is protected freedom of speech? It wasn’t just one ruling that Roberts got horribly wrong. He’s a joke, but clueless Orrin Hatch doesn’t get it.
But a higher opinion of himself.
If it is not an enumerated power... 10th Amendment kicks in.
So easy even a caveman can do it... but not a Congressman or SCOTUS Justice.
YES! Many don't seem to get that.
Congress can now regulate anything you do, and tax anything you don't do.
Of course he would.
Orin, you ignorant slut, maybe you can explain to us then --- but I ain't gonna hold my breath. The simple truth is, John Roberts came down on the wrong side of this critical decision and no amount of parsing, prattling or turd polishing will change that.
A “useful idiot” would be more appropriate.
You can thank Palin for McInsane and Booby Hatch not being primaried. Two piss poor endorsements.
I don't know. I see them both as completely USELESS idiots myself.
“Congress can now regulate anything you do, and tax anything you don’t do”
Honestly now ...who in Congress would seriously say NO to an offer like that? Unless they respected and FEARED We the People?
Structural Corruption.
“
“Naturally, I would have preferred him to rule out the individual mandate,” Hatch said.”
Somehow I seriously doubt that.
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.