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

Skip to comments.

Who's sorry about the Roberts ruling now?
Washington Examiner ^ | 8/22/12 | Noemie Emery

Posted on 08/22/2012 6:29:53 AM PDT by Evil Slayer

Any year now, Democrats may start to ask themselves if it might have been better had John Roberts not changed his mind. If they would be better off with Obamacare out of its and our misery, a bone of contention now safely buried, and not as a bone in their throats.

For one thing, they still have the issue upon them -- the historic triumph they don't dare mention but which Republicans happily do.

Second, were Obamacare no longer the law, we might be seeing an uptick in hiring right now. Instead, that will be deferred until after November (and then possibly only if Romney's elected), and unemployment is rising in 44 states. Unemployment rising in 44 states is not what you want when just ten or so states will decide the election and unemployment has been 8 percent or higher for 41 months.

Third, had Roberts done otherwise, they might still have the issue of Medicare, which at this point they do not. When Paul Ryan was chosen to run with Mitt Romney, liberals planned to rip him to pieces over plans to trim Medicare. Somehow, they forgot that their own health care plan did much the same thing, covering 30 million new clients by draining millions from providers of Medicare. Although these cuts will not directly lead Medicare clients to pay more or lose coverage, they will end with many doctors and hospitals refusing to treat them at all.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: obamacare; obamatax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 08/22/2012 6:29:56 AM PDT by Evil Slayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer
Although these cuts will not directly lead Medicare clients to pay more or lose coverage, they will end with many doctors and hospitals refusing to treat them at all.

That is what many, many people (mostly liberals) do not understand. A doctor does not have to accept Medicare patients. Many have already stopped taking on new Medicare patients. The unintended consequence is there will come a time in the very near future when a Medicare patient will not be accepted............

2 posted on 08/22/2012 6:35:18 AM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

“...had John Roberts not changed his mind”

***

Changed his mind? I think he was bribed or coerced.


3 posted on 08/22/2012 6:35:36 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer
covering 30 million new clients by draining millions from providers of Medicare.

Funny, the main selling point of ObamaCare was covering some 30M uninsured. Coulda just done the same Medicare trick without all the consternation.

(Yes, am aware it was smoke-and-mirrors...)

4 posted on 08/22/2012 6:35:49 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Considering the slim odds of Obamacare being repealed, which will likely take a fillibuster-proof senate and a 14 seat gain (Snowe, Collins, Scott Brown can’t be counted on), I would say this article is garbage. Roberts screwed us, plain and simple. Obamacare is still the law and likely will be forever thanks to Justice Roberts.


5 posted on 08/22/2012 6:37:40 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

I would gladly trade a ruling that maintained Constitutional precepts rather than a temporary political victory that has not even come to fruition yet. Pragmatics that run DC are the cause not the cure.


6 posted on 08/22/2012 6:37:40 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

Our first boy is still in diapers, and the older ones are girls. We used to refer to his boy part as his “member of congress” in recognition of the infamous Anthony Weiner.
Now we refer to it as his “chief justice”.


7 posted on 08/22/2012 6:39:31 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

This is the sort of thing the electorate should be talking about.

Instead, thanks to Todd Akin’s ignorance and hubris, we’re talking about and will continue to talk about whether “legitimate rape” can result in pregnancy.


8 posted on 08/22/2012 6:40:07 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

It won’t be “forever” even if not repealed.
It is simply unsustainable. I don’t give it five years.
Of course, the WHOLE system will come down with it as well.


9 posted on 08/22/2012 6:40:49 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Roberts may have thought he was protecting the Court, but in fact he has done the exact opposite.

Everything that touches SCOTUS will now be hyper-partisan, today and for the foreseeable future. If we think we’ve seen some bloody knock-down dragouts of confirmation battles, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

I half expect one Party or the other to try and resurrect the FDR Court Packing plan.


10 posted on 08/22/2012 6:40:58 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601
Considering the slim odds of Obamacare being repealed, which will likely take a fillibuster-proof senate

Actually, since it's almost all tax and budget, it can be mostly be dealt with via reconciliation (50% + 1 required, not a super-majority).

11 posted on 08/22/2012 6:41:14 AM PDT by kevkrom (Those in a rush to trample the Constitution seem to forget that it is the source of their authority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer
This is sort of like reasoning that it is a good thing Jimbo Carter was elected president in 1976 instead of Gerald Ford.

True, we might not have had eight wonderful years of Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the iron curtain.

But we also wouldn't be facing a batsh*t crazy nuclear Iran and a Panama Canal Zone controlled by the Red Chinese.

For the sake of the righteous, I still have a childlike belief that God is looking out for and actually cares what happens to this country.

But he allows the American sheeple to experience the results of wicked leadership from time to time so that we are schooled in the consequences of choosing wickedness.

12 posted on 08/22/2012 6:44:32 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I like it.

Roberts sold out the American people for something. I’d like to know what.


13 posted on 08/22/2012 6:45:54 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All
Second, were Obamacare no longer the law, we might be seeing an uptick in hiring right now. Instead, that will be deferred until after November (and then possibly only if Romney's elected), and unemployment is rising in 44 states.

AWESOME! That's fantastic! Perish the thought that things may actually start to improve for me or people I love if it hurts Mitt Romney's chances. /s

I'm still and always will be sorry about Roberts' ruling. The Constitution of the United States is not a political toy to be played with.
14 posted on 08/22/2012 6:46:15 AM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

I don’t think Roberts was ever what we thought he was.


15 posted on 08/22/2012 6:48:21 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

Considering the Chicago Thugs involved,
I’m guessing it was a death threat to someone that could not be protected.


16 posted on 08/22/2012 6:48:46 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

This article reminds me of the fans who say that a favorite team should lose on purpose to get a high draft pick.

Not to mention the fact that the ACA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, no matter WHAT Roberts and the other four say.


17 posted on 08/22/2012 6:50:44 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("I love to hear you talk talk talk, but I hate what I hear you say."-Del Shannon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
"Actually, since it's almost all tax and budget, it can be mostly be dealt with via reconciliation (50% + 1 required, not a super-majority)."

Which would bring in the fiasco of the Todd Akin candidacy in Missouri.

18 posted on 08/22/2012 6:51:48 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Roberts was, is and always will be wrong.


19 posted on 08/22/2012 6:58:06 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill
“Roberts was, is and always will be wrong.” However, I believe this is a case of God's writing straight with crooked lines. Because Obamacare stands, Romney can make the following true assertion: if Obama is elected, people age 55 and older will see their medical care cut to pay for Obamacare; if Romney is elected, nothing will change for people over age 55. I believe this is why Romney is doing well in Florida polls: people age 55 know they will have a better deal with ROmney than with Obama. This would not be the case if Obamacare had been repealed.

I'm not going to waste energy even thinking about John ROberts anymore. I am praying hard for a ROmney victory, which will be a big step towards taking our country back!

20 posted on 08/22/2012 7:04:22 AM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

He was not selected to be pussy footin around up there.

That is what He did.


21 posted on 08/22/2012 7:04:28 AM PDT by reefdiver (Shoeless John Roberts, American Backstabber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I’d hope I would never be in the position, but imagine the forefathers having that attitude of ‘what if something bad happens if I don’t do this thing that needs to be done...’


22 posted on 08/22/2012 7:11:34 AM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Whos Sorry Now
Artist: Connie Francis

Who’s sorry now, who’s sorry now
Whose heart is achin’ for breakin’ each vow
Who’s sad and blue, who’s cryin’ too
Just like I cried over you

Right to the end just like a friend
I tried to warn you somehow
You had your way, now you must pay
I’m glad that you’re sorry now

Right to the end just like a friend
I tried to warn you somehow
You had your way, now you must pay
I’m glad that you’re sorry now


23 posted on 08/22/2012 7:11:37 AM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

Traitor John screwed over the entire Federal republic with his abominable act no matter what self-serving and convoluted reasoning he used to explain it.

John is a traitor and deserves nothing but the eternal contempt of every patriot of this once free country. I hope he find whatever Thirty pieces of silver the left had given him useful in hell.


24 posted on 08/22/2012 7:22:36 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

We often hear excuses made that Roberts was considering the “future” and “reputation” of the court or has some grand political calculus that none of us mortals can fathom.

RUBBISH. Obamacare was clearly unconstitutional - all he had to do was write a simple and clear opinion that tells everyone exactly why. His job is then done.


25 posted on 08/22/2012 7:22:53 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

The bottom line is that Roberts voted WITH Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg.


26 posted on 08/22/2012 7:24:15 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

“... the law and likely will be forever”

Way too optimistic. We haven’t “forever”...and WITH ObamaCare...we have a LOT less of it....


27 posted on 08/22/2012 7:26:38 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

“The unintended consequence is there will come a time in the very near future when a Medicare patient will not be accepted............”

If I look into the crystal ball, I see many foreigners, some who are illegals, giving up their hack licenses and taking the Everlyn Wood Speed Doctor course, with a focus on senior medical care documentation.


28 posted on 08/22/2012 7:35:03 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (ABO 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Roberts is a traitor to his oath and the US Constitution he pledged to uphold. Nothing less.


29 posted on 08/22/2012 7:35:47 AM PDT by vortigern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

The above points are good ones, but to impute thereby that Roberts is “one of us” is a grave error.

Like many things spawned by the Bush Administration, Roberts appointment will prove to be a Constitutionally flawed one and this is not the FIRST decision this guy has failed us on.

Further, in addition to his defective views of the Constiution and Court Review of that document, Roberts has demonstrated he is a moral coward - a man effected by the impact of the leftist media and not by the merits of the issue at hand. He may even be swayed by the values of his corrupt collegues Bader-Ginsberg, Soto-Mayor and Kagen - the three witches of the Macbeth scene being played out now by the High Court.

It bodes evil for the future.


30 posted on 08/22/2012 7:39:21 AM PDT by ZULU (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
"That is what many, many people (mostly liberals) do not understand. A doctor does not have to accept Medicare patients. Many have already stopped taking on new Medicare patients. The unintended consequence is there will come a time in the very near future when a Medicare patient will not be accepted............"

I doubt the consequences are unintended, but beyond that, there is already a growing percentage of doctors who won't take Medicare patients and a larger percentage who won't take new to their practice Medicare patients.

31 posted on 08/22/2012 7:41:49 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
If we think we’ve seen some bloody knock-down dragouts of confirmation battles, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

GOP Senator at hearing on Dem SCOTUS nominee: "Let's see, you personally performed abortions but say you have no opinion, you flew to Venezuela to be at the side of Hugo Chavez through his cancer scare and you spit on a soldier on your way into this chamber. You burned the constitution in college and recently said you wish you'd burned the declaration of independence too. The flag makes you cry. But you went to law school so you look qualified otherwise so I vote yes."

Dem Senator at hearing on GOP SCOTUS nominee: "You were awarded jurist of the year on five separate occasions. Your legal briefs are the source material for courses on constitutional law all across the nation. You helped an old lady cross the street today and you put a quarter in all the meters outside so nobody gets a ticket. Wait, did you read "Atlas Shrugged" in college? Extremist! In your world women will have to work as prostitutes and men will be sent to slave galleys! I smell sulpher! I vote no! In fact, fillibuster! Where are the cameras again?"

32 posted on 08/22/2012 7:44:55 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

Who’s sorry about the Roberts Ruling Now?

I am.

Let’s never forget that he betrayed the Constitution, and “re-wrote” a massive bill into something it was not meant to be.

The ends do not justify the means.


33 posted on 08/22/2012 7:49:39 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Did you use your crystal ball in a ‘Hoveround’?..........


34 posted on 08/22/2012 7:57:44 AM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

I’m fairly sure it was unintended by the original writers of the Medicare bill, but liberals never look down the road to consider the consequences of their actions. The ‘here and now’ is all that matters to them. They leave all the messes that civilized rational people have to clean up later.............


35 posted on 08/22/2012 8:02:48 AM PDT by Red Badger (Anyone who thinks wisdom comes with age is either too young or too stupid to know the difference....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

Changed his mind?
This decision was nothing short of brilliant for the constitution and a near death blow for liberals and socialists everywhere..

How, you ask?

First, set aside the emotions, shut off the a.m. radio for a moment and put on your thinking cap. Think about how the libs have been pushing through their programs for over 80 years.

When the supreme court issues a ruling, there are 2 opinions written, the majority and the minority. Both opinions carry weight.

The majority opinion carries the majority of the weight, with the minority opinion carrying little weight, but carrying weight nontheless. The minority opinion can and has been used as a kind of “back door” for judicial activism for decades now.

The libs use 3 main “sledgehammers” to pass and keep passing their agenda.

Roberts took all 3 away.

He stated that the commerce clause cannot be used to create commerce in order to regulate it ( the most favorite tactic of the left )..

Now the brilliant part.. the minority opinion CONCURS!!!
back door closed, sledgehammer taken away....

Roberts ruled that the Necessary and General clause cannot be used to create any damn social program that comes along ( his ruling was way more wordy than this, but this is the general idea )..

And the minority opinion CONCURS!!!
back door closed, sledgehammer taken away....

and now I have saved the best for last (and this one is already being used)

Roberts ruled that the feds can no longer issue mandates to the states with financial penalties for non compliance. In other words, unfunded mandates by the feds to the states cannot happen.

and the minority opinion CONCURS!!!
back door closed, sledgehammer taken away.

I have heard of alot of people saying that Roberts is a traitor to the conservative movement. Roberts is not a conservative. He is a Federalist. He is a member of the Federalist society. He believes in the constitution.

This ruling restored more to the constitution than any other ruling in the past 80 years.

It has effectively destroyed the entire battle plan of the socialists in one big bold swoop.

and the minority opinion concurs....

Had Roberts gone with the other side, the minority opinion would more than likely have been written by that old bag ginsberg, and the libs battle plan could go on uninterupped....

My guess is that the libs were so desperate to keep this thing that they were willing to do ANYTHING...

Roberts saw the opportunity and took it.

He hoodwinked the crap out of the socialists..

How do I know this?

Find and listen to that old bag ginsbergs comments after the ruling..

She was angry as hell, her voice dripping with both sarcasm and disgust..

That is enough proof for me that not only is this what happened, but that she knows the jig is up..


36 posted on 08/22/2012 8:15:22 AM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Thank you!

Roberts took a lot of heat for this, but I always thought he was smarter, by far. We are so lucky to have him.


37 posted on 08/22/2012 8:20:00 AM PDT by Latecomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

And the ruling also sets forth that adhering to the Constitution is not longer required of US Supreme Court Justices.

Which sends your entire argument down the toilet.

The ends, however noble, do not justify the means.


38 posted on 08/22/2012 8:27:04 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Roberts also established that the government can call anything a tax and compel compliance with social diktat using the IRS.


39 posted on 08/22/2012 8:43:04 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

“Roberts screwed us, plain and simple. Obamacare is still the law and likely will be forever thanks to Justice Roberts.”

It also marks the official date of the United States formally becoming a totalitarian state:

“Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. ... It is not synonymous with dictatorship, as authoritarian regimes also exhibit dictatorial features, but do not create an all-controlling, all-politicised society.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

“Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed”
http://www.answers.com/topic/totalitarian

“Totalitarian democracy is a term made famous by Israeli historian J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government. ... Talmon’s 1952 book The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy discusses the transformation of a state in which traditional values and articles of faith shape the role of government into one in which social utility takes absolute precedence. ... The philosophy of totalitarian democracy, according to Talmon, is based on a top-down view of society, which sees an absolute and perfect political truth to which all reasonable humans are driven. ... A totalitarian democracy, says Talmon, accepts “exclusive territorial sovereignty” as its right. It retains full power of expropriation and full power of imposition, i.e., the right of control over everything and everyone. Maintenance of such power, in the absence of full support of the citizenry, requires the forceful suppression of any dissenting element except what the government purposely permits or organizes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy

HealthControl, which mandates what you must purchase and provides for the control of what treatments may or may not be rationed out to you, is as intimate a scale of State intrusion as is possible. “Repeal and replace” is not a solution, it merely paints the problem of tyranny a different color.

This is a totalitarian nation, as surely as was the Soviet Union. It may or may not continue to be relatively benign, but the fact remains that we are no longer a free people. We are subjects now; not citizens. Until we take the steps to reverse the incremental federal overreaches and oppressions of more than a century of what the Democrats AND the Republicans have done to us, we shall remain subjects. Both parties cooperated to bring us to this point. Both parties will cooperate to keep us here.


40 posted on 08/22/2012 8:43:08 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans. Don't read their lips. Watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

Nice general statement..

Please expand on your thought a little further..

like how he did not adhere to the constitution..

But, please keep this in mind, Roberts did state, for the record, that it is not the Supreme Courts job to save the people from themselves..

He also critisized the voting public, and said that you get the government you elect..

In other words, if the people elect a socialist government, it is not the supreme courts job to correct that..

Their job is to rule on points of law..

Now, with that being said, please explain to me how this ruling translates to non adherance to the constitution..

be specific


41 posted on 08/22/2012 8:43:59 AM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

we will never get rid of ObamaCare until the collapse of civilization


42 posted on 08/22/2012 8:48:49 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

In no fewer than 17 places in this monstrosity of a bill ( I am not defending the bill, just the ruling ) this “penalty” is called a tax.

During sworn testimony, the fubo lawyer called it a tax.

It is a tax.

Period.

Is it a legal tax?

We will have to wait until someone actually has to pay it in order to appeal it.

One thing is for sure, with thousands of exemptions written into it, it is not fair or equitable, as required under the constitution. It will not stand as written.

Either it will go away, or the exempted parties will have their exemptions revoked.

But, we will not know until someone is actually damaged by it (has to pay it).

Like I said, stop listening to the talking heads on A.M. radio, and think for a moment.

Independent thought is highly refreshing. I recommend it.


43 posted on 08/22/2012 8:49:40 AM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Evil Slayer

In all fairness, the Roberts decision has done more than destroyed Obamacare. It also seriously undermines federal power across the board. Several ways of looking at this.

1) An essential element of Obamacare was the destruction of Medicare and Medicaid, which on their own, amount to 23% of the US federal budget (actually more, because due to Obama’s profligate spending, the *percent* of the budget for these has been reduced from close to 40% in just a few years.)

And Medicare and Medicaid, in their current forms, are unsustainable, but politically cannot be reformed, so *have* to be killed off. And Obamacare has done a lot to kill them.

So this means that when the Republicans gut Obamacare, it will still leave a much reduced Medicare and Medicaid, that instead of attempting to rebuild, *might possibly* be reformed. The best way of doing this would be to “de-federalize” them, just giving block grants to the states based on per capita need, with minimal federal oversight.

Importantly, if Republicans do *this*, then they are given a gift with the Roberts decision:

2) If the go the block grant way, it establishes a low baseline for what states have to do, and *anything* else the feds want to add in the future *must* come out of the federal purse alone — because they cannot demand that the states pay for expansions.

Importantly, this applies to other programs the Republicans decide to block grant to the states. This could save the states billions of dollars annually, and make those programs much harder to enlarge.

3) Roberts really had no choice but to vote the way he did. It is likely that Justice Kennedy would have jumped ship to join the majority, approving ALL Obamacare, unless
Roberts did. But, one of the few unique duties of the chief justice is that he has the right to *assign* who will write the majority decision, even if he is not on it.

But if Roberts did vote with the majority, he could assign the majority decision to himself, and he did.

He knew that the liberal justices would *never* vote against Obamacare, no matter what he wrote, as long as Obamacare was upheld. So he included a handful of “poison pills” to the decision, and gave the next congress, likely a Republican one, lots of opportunities to sink Obamacare, as well as neuter a whole bunch of other federal programs.


44 posted on 08/22/2012 8:53:04 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

It’s pretty simple:

The ACA was NOT written as a TAX, and in fact was clearly presented as NOT a tax. If it WAS written as a TAX, the bill wouldn NOT have passed.

So, the dishonorable Justice Roberts took it upon himself to RE-WRITE the ACA and call it a TAX.

As you may remember from elementary school, it is the Legislative Branch of government that is charged with writing law, not the Judicial Branch.

Therefore, what he did was clearly unconstitutional.


45 posted on 08/22/2012 8:56:25 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive
"Therefore, what he did was clearly unconstitutional."

And it is the law. Perfectly compatible with the Democrat approach - the law is what we say it is when we say it.

46 posted on 08/22/2012 9:02:17 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive

See post #43..

It was written as a tax..

Just because fubo said it is not a tax does not make that so...

Roberts did not change a thing..

fubo lied (what a surprise)


47 posted on 08/22/2012 9:08:36 AM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy; joe fonebone

Is Obamacare Constitutional, or not? Not the bending, twisting and shaping of the situation by Roberts which resulted in the ruling - nor the ruling itself - but the actual truth.

Under the Constitution as written, under any scheme of rationalization, is it Constitutional for the Federal Government to do what it did in Obamacare?

I say no.

Four conservative justices agree with me.

What say you?

All Roberts had to do was agree with them, and the whole thing fails.

Story is he did agree, then backtracked and found a way to uphold it.

I don’t really care that much about what his motive was. It matters some, but what matters to me is whether this monstrosity is in truth allowed under our Constitution.

If I and the four dissenters are right, Roberts made the WRONG call.

That is, if you admit that Roberts was appointed to rule on the literal Constitutional standing of this law, and not to do the various other machinations that he did.


48 posted on 08/22/2012 9:12:51 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

Indeed. USSC rulings are law.

Which is what makes his actions did so disgraceful.

“I, John Roberts, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

He spit in the face of our Constitution, our People, and our God.

And sadly, you are correct; it is now the Law.


49 posted on 08/22/2012 9:26:16 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

You didn’t read a critical bit in what I wrote.

Your “four other justices” were actually only three.

Justice Kennedy has a nasty habit of breaking split decisions between the conservative and liberal sides of the court by voting liberal. But he *only* does this when he will be the deciding vote.

It is just a bastardly thing to do. But it is almost certain that if Roberts had not voted with the majority, Kennedy would have. And it would have been a 5-4 decision in FAVOR of ALL of Obamacare.

So by Roberts voting that Obamacare was unconstitutional, we would have been completely wiped out. EVERY part of Obamacare would have been sustained.

Would *that* have been better? No it would not have been.

Instead, by voting in favor of Obamacare, Roberts created the ability of the Republicans in congress to destroy it. And not just it, but a bunch of other giant federal programs as well.

He couldn’t do it himself, but he made it possible for congress to do it.

To destroy Obamacare, they now won’t need a 2/3rds majority of both houses, which would almost certainly be blocked by the Democrats. Instead, just a simple majority of both houses, and the signature of the president.

And Obamacare is dead.


50 posted on 08/22/2012 9:28:03 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 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