Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts Rules
Time Magazine ^ | 16 July 2012 | Times Staff

Posted on 07/15/2012 8:14:57 AM PDT by OldNavyVet

You don’t need to love classical music to be amazed that Beethoven wrote his Ninth Symphony while deaf or be a fan of the New York Giants to marvel at Willie Mays’ catch of the 1954 World Series.

For legal buffs, the virtuoso performance of Chief Justice Roberts in deciding the biggest case of his career was just that sort of jaw dropper, no matter how they might feel about Obamacare.

Not since King Solomon offered to split the baby has a judge engineered a slicker solution to a bitterly divisive dispute .

(Excerpt) Read more at swampland.time.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: altereddate; obamacare; roberts; supreme
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Those are the opening words in the 16 July 2012 Time Magazine ... with “Roberts Rules” as its front page headline.

IMHO, the article reveals the brilliance in Roberts' decision.

1 posted on 07/15/2012 8:15:01 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

The best baseball anaology to Roberts’ perverse decision is not Willie Mays’ catch but Bill Buckner’s infamous non-fielding of a slow roller to first.


2 posted on 07/15/2012 8:20:45 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Socialism consumes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
I'm still not seeing how this is either brilliant or good or constitutional.

But that's just me.

3 posted on 07/15/2012 8:23:33 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Roger Taney? Not a bad Chief Justice. John Roberts? A really awful Chief Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Article date is 29 June 2012

Roberts Rules

4 posted on 07/15/2012 8:24:13 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Not since King Solomon offered to split the baby has a judge engineered a slicker solution to a bitterly divisive dispute.

Yes, but King Solomon offered to split the baby in order to find out which claimant to be his mother valued the baby's life.

In contrast, Roberts pulled out his abortionist's scalpel and split the baby himself.

5 posted on 07/15/2012 8:28:20 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Time Magazine patting Roberts on the back is all I need for proof that my mindset is right that Roberts decision in anti-Constitution BS and good for the progressive movement.


6 posted on 07/15/2012 8:28:25 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Spend some time reading robert's own words and study his past decisions... or read Mark Levin's take on all of this in his archives, located on his website. See if you still think that roberts is brilliant. He has violated his oath in several ways... if what you think that he did was what he actually did. No, when you study the man it becomes clear what his largest motivating factor is... and it isn't the Constitution or Liberty and Freedom.

LLS

7 posted on 07/15/2012 8:41:36 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
Date on the published magazine is July 16, 2012.

Nonetheless, Good Catch! .. It was online published by Time Magazine earlier ... on 29 June.

8 posted on 07/15/2012 9:16:14 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

This is the beginning of the Lionization of Roberts.

He bowed to Liberal Orthodoxy by rationalizing an Unconstitutional law into a Constitutional law.

Here Here Chief Justice Roberts, you now have free Chardonnay and ass kissing from the Establishment Left.

This was his goal with the faulty decision and this is one of many payments for the treachery.


9 posted on 07/15/2012 9:27:55 AM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
With all due respect to Mark Levin, I too was unhappy with the Supreme Court decision; but thinking it through led to a change of mind.

PS: Chief Justice "roberts" name is spelled Roberts.

10 posted on 07/15/2012 9:35:15 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
It is both an example of Roberts’ balancing act and another win for the antifederalists.

These stupid writers don't even know the definition of federalism, so it is insane to put any credence n the rest of their drivel.

11 posted on 07/15/2012 9:50:29 AM PDT by palmer (Jim, please bill me 50 cents for this completely useless post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
the article reveals the brilliance in Roberts' decision.

....kinda reminds me of the brilliance of Chauncey Gardiner....simply brilliant.
12 posted on 07/15/2012 9:53:39 AM PDT by Girlene (Chief AHat Roberts - should resign in disgrace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Not since King Solomon offered to split the baby has a judge engineered a slicker solution to a bitterly divisive dispute.

King Solomon offered to split the baby because he knew that the real mother would rather give up her child than kill him. He never intended to do it.

Roberts, on the other hand, went right ahead, took out his abortion scalpel, and split the baby in half.

Although Time Magazine is incapable of understanding the difference, that's pretty much the difference between true wisdom and left wing convenience.

13 posted on 07/15/2012 9:56:51 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer
These stupid writers don't even know the definition of federalism, so it is insane to put any credence n the rest of their drivel.

A quick Google look at "federalism" produced this ...

The lack of a bill of rights was the focus of the Anti-Federalist campaign against ratification.

Given that, would you agree that the anti-federalists were right in getting the Bill of Rights into the Constitution?

How about a "Bravo" for Anti-Federalists ... and Roberts?

14 posted on 07/15/2012 10:07:48 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

You and the no-nothings at Time will throw federalism in the trash can due to a slight misunderstanding? Next time try Google Scholar.


15 posted on 07/15/2012 10:20:45 AM PDT by palmer (Jim, please bill me 50 cents for this completely useless post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Nor me, this is just a very long article justifying a Roberts’ decision that has armed the Federal government with a weapon to force anything and destroy anyone who opposes it. Roberts’ name should be known in the same league as Benedict Arnold. He is no defender of the Constitution. He is the Trojan Horse that can carry its ultimate destruction.
16 posted on 07/15/2012 10:26:20 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Not in my home it isn’t.

LLS


17 posted on 07/15/2012 10:27:45 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
...read Mark Levin's take on all of this...
He's got transcripts? You got link to them?
18 posted on 07/15/2012 10:30:15 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Actually he has his shows archived and he has not yet put them into text form. If you listen to his show the day after the decision was handed down... and the following day... you will learn much and understand what his (CJR's) motivation was. Unfortunately I can find no written text of Mark's shows anywhere. I misspoke and apologize for it. You can if you wish, listen to it just as I did when it aired live.

LLS

19 posted on 07/15/2012 11:06:55 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
As I said before to someone else on this...I'm deaf in my left ear and going deaf in my right.
I prefer to read, not listen. I trust my eyes, not my ears.
20 posted on 07/15/2012 11:11:52 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck
The best baseball anaology to Roberts’ perverse decision is not Willie Mays’ catch but Bill Buckner’s infamous non-fielding of a slow roller to first.

Excellent!

21 posted on 07/15/2012 11:21:39 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

There was nothing brilliant in his decision. May he rot in hell. All he did is move us a step closer to serfdom.


22 posted on 07/15/2012 11:39:35 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

There was nothing brilliant in his decision. May he rot in hell. All he did is move us a step closer to serfdom.


23 posted on 07/15/2012 11:39:52 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Well now, that is just pathetic.

Who would have guessed that Time Magazine would laud Traitor John for his butchering of the Constitution? Oh yeah, just about anyone with a brain.

What are you going to post next? How about:

British Weekly lauds the brilliance of Benedict Arnold.


24 posted on 07/15/2012 11:43:08 AM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
British Weekly lauds the brilliance of Benedict Arnold.

FYI ... The British took Benedict Arnold back with, almost, open arms ... based primarily on his brillant leadership and performance against Britain at Quebec, Valcor Bay, and Lexington.

At my last visit to West Point's museum, the Lexington Battle exhibit gives full credit to Arnold for the decisive victory that won the war.

Similarly, and hopefully, history will give Roberts a great deal of credit for Obama (and his Senatorial buddies) defeat in November ... and the consequent repeal of Obamacare.

Why did Anold betray America?

Answer: Congress betrayed Arnold; he wasn't popular with the rotten politician crowd.

25 posted on 07/15/2012 12:13:33 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Roberts rules. “betray the constitution to keep your homo past in the closet”


26 posted on 07/15/2012 12:20:13 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Figures you are an admirer of Benedict Arnold. Really, I think you are on the wrong forum.

Let your freak flag fly somewhere else like the D.U.


27 posted on 07/15/2012 12:27:32 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

So? Time thinks that illegals are “Americans”, too.


28 posted on 07/15/2012 12:32:56 PM PDT by Politicalmom (THIS IS NOT A GOP CHEERLEADING SITE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
...the Lexington Battle exhibit gives full credit to Arnold for the decisive victory that won the war.

WTH are you talking about?

29 posted on 07/15/2012 12:47:53 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
Figures you are an admirer of Benedict Arnold. Really, I think you are on the wrong forum.

Wrong forum? Not at all.

Sugggested reading: "Rabble in Arms" by Kenneth Roberts, a brilliant historian and writer.

Is there anybody out there that can see if our Justice John Roberts is a Kenneth Roberts descendant?

30 posted on 07/15/2012 12:51:05 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Questions for consideration:

1. Is the duty of the Court to interpret the constitutionality of the legislation, which is before it, as passed by the Legislative Branch?

Or:

2. Is the duty of the Court, by its process of interpretation, to be inclined to utilize a discretionary ability to protect the Court's reputation from criticism among a strong factional segment of the citizenry and their political representatives?

We may remember recent and unprecedented attacks on the Court's decisions, and potential upcoming decisions by the Administration and its surrogates; or, as the Huffington Post reported on August 16, 2008, following the Saddleback interview with then-presidential-candidate Obama, the following critical remarks of a Justice:

"I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas," said the presumptive Democratic nominee. "I don't think that he...' the crowd interrupted with applause. 'I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution.'"

Fortunately for citizens, America's genius Founders might strongly disagree with the opinions of that candidate who has spent 3 years challenging that Constitution's limits on his use of coercive power to "change" America.

31 posted on 07/15/2012 12:54:26 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Questions for consideration:

1. Is the duty of the Court to interpret the constitutionality of the legislation, which is before it, as passed by the Legislative Branch?

Or:

2. Is the duty of the Court, by its process of interpretation, to be inclined to utilize a discretionary ability to protect the Court's reputation from criticism among a strong factional segment of the citizenry and their political representatives?

We may remember recent and unprecedented attacks on the Court's decisions, and potential upcoming decisions by the Administration and its surrogates; or, as the Huffington Post reported on August 16, 2008, following the Saddleback interview with then-presidential-candidate Obama, the following critical remarks of a Justice:

"I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas," said the presumptive Democratic nominee. "I don't think that he...' the crowd interrupted with applause. 'I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution.'"

Fortunately for citizens, America's genius Founders might strongly disagree with the opinions of that candidate who has spent 3 years challenging that Constitution's limits on his use of coercive power to "change" America.

32 posted on 07/15/2012 12:54:51 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Oh, I bet it was a super-duper, top-secret, mind game that Traitor John was playing when he wrote the original majority opinion.

He just waited a month to change his “brilliant” mind to sucker punch Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy.

He’s a coward and a traitor. He’s a selfish man not a brilliant one.


33 posted on 07/15/2012 1:02:47 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Yeah, trashing the US Constitution is just brilliant.


34 posted on 07/15/2012 1:12:43 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Not since King Solomon offered to split the baby has a judge engineered a slicker solution to a bitterly divisive dispute.

It was slick alright!
And it stinks too.

He should wipe it off with this:


35 posted on 07/15/2012 1:24:42 PM PDT by Iron Munro ("Jiggle the Handle for Barry!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown
WTH are you talking about?

I'm talking about the US Military Academy at West Point.

They have a museum dedicated to military matters, and they've therein recognized Benedict Arnold's heroism (as a Continental Army commander) in battle.

36 posted on 07/15/2012 1:55:28 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: facedown
WTH are you talking about?

I'm talking about the US Military Academy at West Point.

They have a museum dedicated to military matters, and they've therein recognized Benedict Arnold's heroism (as a Continental Army commander) in battle.

37 posted on 07/15/2012 1:56:08 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Yeah, I get that, but you wrote "...the Lexington Battle exhibit gives full credit to Arnold for the decisive victory that won the war."

However, Arnold was not at Lexington, nor was Lexington "the decisive victory that won the war."

Arnold fought valiantly and was wounded at Saratoga which, arguably, was the turning point of the war but certainly not "the decisive victory that won the war". After failing to gain the credit he believed he deserved, and probably did, for that battle he turned traitor.

No one would argue that the Congress, or Washington for that matter, treated Arnold fairly. That doesn't mitigate the fact that he was an egotistical, self-aggrandizing jerk who turned coat and actually led British troops against Continental units before fleeing to England where, by the way, he was largely shunned.

38 posted on 07/15/2012 3:26:03 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: facedown
Arnold was not at Lexington

You're right. It was Saratoga where Arnold saved the day, captured a British Amry ... and thereby saved the Union.

I'm getting old, and forgetful.

But good memories abound in my mind. I've been a very lucky guy.

39 posted on 07/15/2012 9:48:26 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Well that is interesting, but the analogy is that Roberts is Arnold without any preceding valor. There is nothing in Roberts’ decision expect lip service to a couple of conservative principles which don’t matter since others were discarded. The “tax” will be challenged and find its way to the SC where Roberts will rule it Constitutional, this time with a bigger majority. Obamacare will probably not be repealed unless we fill the Senate with otherwise worthless RINOs like Scott Brown


40 posted on 07/16/2012 1:58:29 AM PDT by palmer (Jim, please bill me 50 cents for this completely useless post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
"Roberts rules. “betray the constitution to keep your homo past in the closet”."

Roberts is a QUEER???
That would explain the "about face".

41 posted on 07/21/2012 7:41:49 PM PDT by trickyricky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; Yehuda; 444Flyer; ladyL
Yes, but King Solomon offered to split the baby in order to find out which claimant to be his mother valued the baby's life. In contrast, Roberts pulled out his abortionist's scalpel and split the baby himself.

Exactly right. *Chief* "Justice" Roberts is the high priest of the Obamanation of desolation who performed the profaning sacrifice in the inner sanctuary (the USSC, where the Supreme Law is supposed to be kept and guarded).

June 28, 2012 was the day the Constitution became the victim of a post-birth abortion. Obamacare = covenant with death = America's DNR directive, with Pelosi and Wasserman-Shultz competing for the role of Nurse Ratched.

If only this pro-death idolatry decision-worship were merely a modern equivalent of The Emperor's New Clothes...


42 posted on 07/21/2012 8:30:56 PM PDT by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

I keep hearing how ‘brilliant Robert’s is” in making his decision because suppsoedly, he slammed the door shut on the left in terms of using obamacare on the baqsis of the ‘commerce clause’ and that Roberts ‘forced’ the ocoma administration to ‘admit obummercare is a tax’ but the REALITY is that Roberts opened a gaping hole for the left to drive straight through unimpeeded in the future- Sure, The right can ‘repeal obummercare’ however, when the left regains the office and senate, they will simply just reinstate obummercare because Roberts gave them free reign to simply reinstate an UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION TO OUR FREEDOMS!!!

There was NOTHING ‘Brilliant’ About this assault on our constitutional rights- NOTHING! Roberts was nominated to make judgements and uphold the rule of law, and he refused to do so and isntead LEGISLATED from the BENCH- compeltely ignorign the FACT that forcing someoen to pay a penalty for NOT buying something is a compelte VIOLATION to our constitutional rights!!!

Never before in our history has our government forced it’s citizens to purchase a product or service simpyl becasue we are alive- NEVER!- Justice (and I use that term in this case VERY loosly)Roberts legislated fro mthe bench allowing our government to FORCE citizens to purchase somethign OR pay a penalty-

Takign this to the extreme to prove the poin t- There is supposed to be NOTHING that we absolutely have to do- We don’t even have to pay taxes IF we choose not to- We could kill ourselves in order to deny the government their ‘collection powers’, or we could comkpletely go off the grid- leave our homes, live off the land, and never simply keep on the move and never pay taxes again- We DO have thsi CHOICE if we so choose-

Now, admitedly, this is the extreme- but the point is that IF we so CHOOSE to pay taxes, then WE have made that choice- NOT the government- Now however, We no longer have the choice- EVEN IF we choose to go off grid and live in the wild- We will be concidered ‘fugitives from justice’ because we refuse to purchase obummercare because ‘by law’ the government will now be obligated to pursue said ‘offgrid’ individual for ‘non-payment’ of obummercare

And we now have ‘justice’ roberts to ‘thank’ for giving our goverment the very powers that socialist governments have, and the very powers that england had- the very government that we ESCAPED FROM way back when when they became too pwoerful and invasive and intrusive into our private lives- Now, we’re right back where we started- Heck- we’re even seeing states determining whether or not a business can conduct their business i nthe state according to their religious beleifs- IF the business doesn’t subscribbe to the state’s ‘religion’ of homosexuality- then by golly, that business can notr practice i n the state now apparently-

Obummercare ALSO violates the seperation of church and state inthat it will now FORCE emplyers, and organizatiosn to provide abortions and birth control etc via government sanctioned healthcare- Before roberts opened that door- employers were free to choose their own healthcare- and could choose healthcare that refused to cover such abominations- now however, they will no longer have that choice, and will infact have to pay into government mandadted HC which supports such assaults o nthe innocent-

No- Roberts decision was NOT Brilliant- it was judicial malpractice because roberts REFUSED to fully and objectively uphold our constitution, and he gave our governmetn unfettered ability to trample on our constitutional rights


43 posted on 07/28/2012 10:14:05 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Recommended reading ... http://www.ocregister.com/articles/commerce-361220-mandate-court.html


44 posted on 07/28/2012 12:28:49 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Vet- I havew read thbose similar arguments, and it is clear that these folks are glossing over the FACT that while the ‘interstate commerce clause’ argument hasw beren shut down by roberts (tyhankfully) roberts opened an even bigger gaping hole for the left to drive their constitution destroying tanks through

Will said “If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively as to give Congress an essentially unlimited police power”

True- but now they have an EVEN BIGGER loophole to operate their intrusive powers under- roberts gave them the ability to simply reenact obummercare whenever the left regains power in the government- Had roberts upheld ALL the constitution- He would have shut down the commerce clause argument once and for all AND ALSO made sure that the rule was deemed UNCONSTUTIONAL (not yelling- just stressign key poitns)

Roberts just gave ouyr government the ‘right’ to dictate to us what is ‘healthy and prudent for us’ and he gave them the ‘right’ to fine us IF we choose NOT to participate in the government’s mandates- Thuis IS a VERY slippery slope- and it has opened up the door for our government to declare a mandate for all of us to eat brocolli because science shows thaT brocolli prevents certain cancers, AND the government can now further ‘justify’ their arguments for the intrusive mandates by claimign that IF we choose NOT to eat brocolli, then we are putting undue financial burderns o nthe public because we ‘MIGHT’ end up i nthe hospital for long term cancer care, and so we ‘Must be fiend’ for refusing to eat said brocoli

I know this sounds rediculous- and soem might say “Oh, the government would never be so bold as to enact such mandates” Well it already has enacted such a mandate with the obummercare, and htis is just the beginning, because now roberts has opened up a HUGE avenue for the government to ‘collect fines’ through penalties on those who ‘choose not to participate’ in government mandated edicts and services

Soime say “Well roberts ‘forced the left to admit obummercare is a tax’” Yeah? Since when did the left ever run away from taxing citizens? the left isn’t afraid of this beign called a tax- hell- they love taxes- roberts just gave them a HUGE gift and opened up doors for taxation that were prebviously closed to them thanks to our constitution (which is now beign eroded aqway bit by bit)

There is now a 3.8% tax on ‘the rich’ when they sell a house and ‘gain over $500,000 off the sale- this isn’;t getting much coiverage- but our government is apaprently now ‘taxing’/fining people for just being rich- and now they are goign to be going after everyoen with further taxes simply for breathing and existing-

Our Supreme court MUST uphold our constitution- it MUST stop this unprecedented expansion and intrusion of and by our government into our lives-

George will never addressed the FACT that now- thanks to roberts- the left has the power to tax us for ANYTHING they want and to do so under the guise that it is ‘in everyone’
s best itnerest’ that these new taxes be enacted/mandated

As I said before our ONLY hope is to have thsi brought BACK BEFORE the Supreme court, and have the word ‘taxes’ precisely defined and also to define just how far our government can go in taxing the citizens when these taxes turn out to be FINES for simply being alive

Before roberts slit hte throat of america, the ONLY thing we as citizens HAD TO DO was die- that’s it- that was he ONLY mandatory thing we HAD TO DO- Now however- WE MUST buy our government’s health care OR pay a FINE for choosing NOT to purchase goernment run healthcare or else we will be deemed criminals for nionpayment (either of the obummercare, or of the fine) IF someone doesn’t pay the IRS- they are deemed criminals- Now- IF someone doesn’t pay the thugs in government- they are deemed crinminals

One more point (sorry htis is so long-) The Mafia used to walk up and down the streets- stopping in every store and business and tell them “Buy our insurance OR ELSE!!!” Guess what? It was ILLEGAL for them to do that- why? Because you could NOT FORCE ANYONE to buy
ANYTHING they didn’t want to buy before- But now our government has taken over the position that that hte mafia once held, but hte only difference is that they got roberts to tell them it was now legal for them, our government, to FORCE peopel to buy the insurance OR ELSE!!!”

Geoge will never even addressed any of this in his article- Look up Mark Levine’s article or podcast or whatever o nthe ruling- He makes soem very valid poionts abotu htese subjects I’ve been discussing (I haven’t actually heard or read his commentary on it yet- but have heard snippets)


45 posted on 07/29/2012 9:08:26 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Here’s a link to the Mwegan Kelly interview with levine (Who incidently is a constitutional attourney- George will is not)- http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-talks-to-megyn-kelly-about-roberts-decision/

He rightly points out that the puropose of taxes is NOT sim ply to raise revenue- the government’s point of taxes is to coerce citizens and to punish people for success (just as obummer is now attackign people simply for beign rich- and roberts just handed the left a HUGE gift to to just that (as expalined in my previosu post)

I don’t know2 if this following link is more detailed, IO would htink it would be- but here’s his podcast on the issue http://marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2484259&spid=32364

Like levine states- peopel like george will and others who are declaring roberts decision a ‘victory for the right’ are desperately tryign to as he puts it “Prop up this silver lining argument but hte fact is that there is no silver lining’ because the constitution has just had a huge hole blasted through it thanks to roberts- ansd hten goes on to explain how- (I para[phrased- so the quote isn’t exact)

The simple fact is that roberts caved in to media and presidential pressure- he went so far as tro flip his vote in order that the court not be ‘perceived as biased’- it was NOT roberts right to rule based on what hte country might ‘percieve’- it was his DUTY to rule objectively- which he had doen PREVIOUS to his flipping- but his flipping proved he legislated fro mthe bench- deciding for himself, that it was morei mportant to be seen as ‘unbiased’ the4n to decide the case based o nthe constitution- he made a BIASED descision about what the ‘public might think ie: What libberals will claim) should he decide the3 case based o nthe constitution-

Unless I’m grosley mistaken about something in htis case that I am unaware of, it is my beleif that roberts engaged in judicial malpractice becasue he REFUSED to concider the case without bias- IF he can’t see how declaring the governmetn has the right to FORCE peopel to buy somethign agaiosnt hteir will violates our constitutional rights, then in my opinion, he has NO RIGHT to sit o nthe bench- nor do 3/4 of the judges there- they take AN OATH to uphold the consitution, but these judges have doen nothign but legislate fro mthe bench and cut our consitution to shreds over hte years-


46 posted on 07/29/2012 9:30:11 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I know this sounds rediculous- and soem might say “Oh, the government would never be so bold as to enact such mandates” Well it already has enacted such a mandate with the obummercare, and htis is just the beginning, because now roberts has opened up a HUGE avenue for the government to ‘collect fines’ through penalties on those who ‘choose not to participate’ in government mandated edicts and services

Cott, you're right about this issue being horrendous; but I think that Roberts is telling Americans that ... "Congress, not the court, has the power to make law. You get what you vote for. And ... Brother, you asked for it."

In other words, Roberts is essentially telling us that an election is how bad law gets fixed.

47 posted on 07/29/2012 9:52:50 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

[[In other words, Roberts is essentially telling us that an election is how bad law gets fixed.]]

My point is that the bad law isn’t goign to get fixed- the gop might repeal the law, but roberts has made it possible for the left to simply reinstate the unconsitutional law- and make no mistake, it IS an unconstitutional law, when they regain power- that’s not a fix, but a temporary bandaid- our supreme court had a duty to do, a duty to define how far into our lives the government was allowed to tintrude, and it failed to uphold OUR consitutional rights and granted the governmet unfettered and unprecedented power to control what we purchase- and that is exactly what the mafia did to business owners- if it was illegal for the mafia to do that, then why is it now legal fopr our government to do the exacty same thing? This isn’t a voter issue- this is a cosntituional issue that needed to be decided by our supreme court- and it needed to be decided objectively- NOT based o nwhether the court would be perceived by the left to be biased if it ruled agaisnt the admin istration

I beleive Roberts is flat out wrong abotu htis being an issue that needs to be decided by the voting public- our supreme court has aq duty to decide objectively what our constituion allows or dissallows, we the people do not have that duty

Lety’sa suppose a GOP thinks it’s illegal to steal a purse, but a liberal thinks it’s alright (based o nthe ‘needs of the criminal who ‘may be hungry at hte time of theft)- and it makes it’s way to the supreme copurt- Our SC has a duty to rule based on the constitution and how the constitution is set up to protect individual rights- Just because the left feels sorry for the criminal who ‘might be’ hungry at hte tiem of theft, our constitution is suppsoed to protect us, the majority, agaisnt being robbed- however- roberts has now given the goernemtn the right to rob us based on the premise of what ‘might happen’ if we don’t have insurancve-

I’m too tired right now to make fuirther arguments- but My beleif is that roberts is way off o nthis being aN issue that voters should decide- roberts had a responsibilty to determien how far our government can go toward invading our lives, and forcing us to buy their produict- and he failed- and now he’s tryign to paqwn it off o nthe voters? Wow! Just wow!


48 posted on 07/29/2012 11:14:42 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

What Roberts is telling us is that he is a typical Harvard Statist, who does not believe in God given rights of man, inalienable rights of man.

Roberts believes that rights come from the state, not God, therefore, whatever the state deems appropriate is what happens. We have a big problem with Roberts. He’s as liberal as Ginsburg.


49 posted on 07/29/2012 11:28:06 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
it needed to be decided objectively

The way I see it is that Robert's avoided making a subjective decision; to wit: that the Supreme court could revoke, repeal, or cancel a legally (Constitutionally) passed law, a law that included a "tax."

Might I suggest you look up the word "mandate." You'll find there that the Supreme court's decision is a mandate order (aka: "You fix it") to the American people.

50 posted on 07/29/2012 11:50:02 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson