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

Skip to comments.

Live Thread: SCOTUS hearings on Obamacare [Day 3 Arguments; Post 153+]
National Review ^ | 0/26/2012 | Avik Roy

Posted on 03/26/2012 8:11:01 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

Edited on 03/26/2012 10:25:10 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

I will be live-blogging the Supreme Court hearings on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from March 26 to 28, beginning at 10 a.m. on Monday. I invite readers and NRO contributors to chip in with their observations. I will also incorporate Twitter feeds from various people from the health-care and legal worlds who are covering the case.

This is my first time running a live-blog, so my apologies if there are beginners’ technical glitches. See you in this space on Monday!

Audio:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/11-398-Monday.mp3

Transcript:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Monday.pdf

Windows Media:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/wmafiles/11-398-Monday.wma

Real Audio:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/realplayerfiles/11-398-Monday.ra


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bhohealthcare; commerceclause; lawsuit; livescotusobamacare; necessaryproper; obamacare; oralarguements; oralargurments; scotus; scotusobamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last
To: tcrlaf
Obamacare taxes are ALREADY being paid, like the 10% Medical Devices Tax. The question is the MANDATE

Actually, the question for today is the penalty, not the mandate. No one's arguing that Congress doesn't have the authority to levy a medical devices tax -- it's whether or not the mandate's penalty qualifies as a tax that is today's subject.

If the answer to that is "yes", then the rest of the argument becomes moot, because the USSC will punt until 2014.

51 posted on 03/26/2012 9:58:11 AM PDT by kevkrom (Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Audio NOW at http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/


52 posted on 03/26/2012 10:01:20 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

As I understand it (I’m not a lawyer)

Day 1 (today): Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the case... at least the ‘tax’ portion. Arguments about applicability of the Anti-Injunction Law to Obamacare. Arguments about whether the failure to buy insurance (as required by the Individual Mandate) constitutes a tax or a penalty. (Duh, it’s a penalty). If they rule it’s a tax, then arguments on this cannot be done until 2015 or later. SCOTUS hired their own guy to investigate this.... they are taking it seriously.

Day 2: Individual Mandate arguments.
Day 3: Severability issues.

Today’s Oral args. up on CSpan now.


53 posted on 03/26/2012 10:03:46 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

The SCOTUS has released the audio and TRANSCIPTS!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday


54 posted on 03/26/2012 10:07:12 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thanks for starting this thread. Very important issue to follow carefully.

Thanks again!

BTTT.


55 posted on 03/26/2012 10:13:59 AM PDT by hummingbird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Direct from SCOTUS website:

MP3 Audio File
Windows Media File
Real Audio File
Adobe PDF of Transcript

56 posted on 03/26/2012 10:14:55 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; EternalVigilance

Amen and Amen.


57 posted on 03/26/2012 10:27:42 AM PDT by hummingbird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: alancarp; katiedidit1

katie, see #53.


58 posted on 03/26/2012 10:28:48 AM PDT by RitaOK (LET 'ER RIP, NEWT. Newt knows where all the bodies are buried, because he buried them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
"Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Yes, Nancy, we are very series!!

59 posted on 03/26/2012 10:31:16 AM PDT by JPG (Hold on tight; rough road ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: sand lake bar
So, if Congress passed a bill stating that Tea Party members would be rounded up and put in camps in 2014, and the camps were being built in the meantime, the USSC couldn’t rule on that bill’s constitutionality?

No. There is a special rule for tax cases: a statute says that no federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin a tax law. (Taxes can be challenged in court in other ways, but often only after the tax has been paid.) The issue for today's arguments is whether the individual mandate is a "tax," in which case its constitutionality can't be decided until 2014, or a "regulation," in which case its constitutionality can be decided now.

60 posted on 03/26/2012 10:38:35 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: katiedidit1
I wonder if Hillary and Bill ever regret the pact they made with the evil Soros...to usher in socialism, via healthcare and other means and bring about the swift destruction of this great nation.

I wonder if they've ever regretted selling out the country, for a seat on the dark side. Only, once you've signed that pact, there's no turning back...or, it would be extremely difficult to.

Nah. They likely have no trouble sleeping at night.

61 posted on 03/26/2012 10:38:55 AM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

Ping to audio & transcripts at #56


62 posted on 03/26/2012 10:40:12 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the case... at least the ‘tax’ portion. Arguments about applicability of the Anti-Injunction Law to Obamacare. Arguments about whether the failure to buy insurance (as required by the Individual Mandate) constitutes a tax or a penalty. (Duh, it’s a penalty). If they rule it’s a tax, then arguments on this cannot be done until 2015 or later. SCOTUS hired their own guy to investigate this.... they are taking it seriously.

One of the lower courts held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred any challenge to the constitutionality of the individual mandate before 2014. The Obama administration is not making that argument, so the Court appointed a lawyer to argue the lower court's position.

63 posted on 03/26/2012 10:48:52 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Justice Scalia got a laugh from the gallery from his comment (beginning at 16:31 minutes in) where he says that all federal courts are intelligent. ;p


64 posted on 03/26/2012 10:49:19 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

That’s what I have been thinking too, she might might vote against. She’s been appointed and installed, so she doesn’t need Obama and her place in history will be more important. She surely can see which way the wind is blowing.


65 posted on 03/26/2012 10:52:21 AM PDT by MomwithHope (Buy and read Ameritopia by Mark Levin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Was Scalia being serious?


66 posted on 03/26/2012 10:52:42 AM PDT by newfreep (Breitbart sent me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Thanks for the correction.


67 posted on 03/26/2012 10:57:33 AM PDT by RitaOK (LET 'ER RIP, NEWT. Newt knows where all the bodies are buried, because he buried them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Appreciated... boy, my untrained ear is having a real hard time with these audio bits.


68 posted on 03/26/2012 10:59:28 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Justice Ginsburg says something interesting.

“The Tax Injunction Act does not apply to penalties that are designed to induce compliance with the law rather than to raise revenue. And this is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it’s successful, they won’t — nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise.”


69 posted on 03/26/2012 10:59:34 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Cool live chat feed. I sure hope they do the right thing here...and also do the will of the people!

GET RID OF THIS ABOMINATION!!


70 posted on 03/26/2012 11:01:37 AM PDT by LUV W (Obama's foot soldiers are repulsive human debris and the voting public is sick to death of them! *RL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Funny exchange between Ginsberg and the Solicitor General (paraphrased):

RBG: ‘So if a person who is supposed to buy insurance, doesn’t do so, and pays the penalty.... if they are asked if they’ve ever violated a federal law, have they?’

SG: ‘Our position is that they should answer “No” - they have not violated federal law.”

RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’
RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’

Alito: (I think) ‘You keep saying “the tax”...’ (laughter)
SG: ‘The tax-penalty’


71 posted on 03/26/2012 11:04:42 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Wow! Even liberals make sense sometimes.


72 posted on 03/26/2012 11:04:50 AM PDT by MichaelNewton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Nice clarification between “tax” and “penalty”.

Any variant of that applicable to the NFA transfer tax? to wit: some (*cough*paltry*cough*) revenue will be raised, nowhere near enough to cover tax office operating costs, because a few hardcore people will be willing to pay for permission to do something the tax is designed to discourage?


73 posted on 03/26/2012 11:06:45 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Another interesting comment from Justice Ginsburg:

“This is a suit that is challenging the must-buy provision, and the argument is made that, if, indeed, “must-buy” is constitutional, than these complainants will not resist the penalty. So what they’re seeking is a determination that that “must-buy” requirement, stated separately from penalty, that “must-buy” is unconstitutional, and, if that’s so, that’s the end of the case; if it’s not so, they are not resisting the penalty.”


74 posted on 03/26/2012 11:07:10 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MichaelNewton

This is way to big to politicize. It will impact the lives of liberals as well as conservatives. I feel they are going to do the right thing.


75 posted on 03/26/2012 11:07:26 AM PDT by jersey117 (The Stepford Media should be sued for malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

bttt


76 posted on 03/26/2012 11:10:24 AM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Another laugh from the gallery when Mr. Long, who is arguing that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, says:

“Well, I would not argue that this statute is a perfect model of clarity,”


77 posted on 03/26/2012 11:11:45 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

No, he was kidding.


78 posted on 03/26/2012 11:13:28 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Sounds like she’s suggesting that the constitutionality of the individual mandate pre-empts arguments on the jurisdiction of the tax/penalty provision... and that makes sense: If the mandate is bad, then the penalty clearly cannot stand, and the anti-injunction act applicability is a moot point.


79 posted on 03/26/2012 11:13:28 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

IANAL, but it seems to me that’s where she’s leaning.


80 posted on 03/26/2012 11:14:41 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Justice Alito to General Verrilli:

“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax.
Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”


81 posted on 03/26/2012 11:22:13 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

A very funny exchange at about 41:44

JUSTICE GINSBURG: So — so you — you agree that we would not — if we agree with you about the correct interpretation of the statute, we need not decide the jurisdiction.
GENERAL VERRILLI: There would be no reason to decide the jurisdictional issue.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Don’t you want to know the answer?
(Laughter.)
GENERAL VERRILLI: Justice Kennedy, I think we all want to know the answer to a lot of things in this case.


82 posted on 03/26/2012 11:29:51 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

A very funny exchange at about 41:44

JUSTICE GINSBURG: So — so you — you agree that we would not — if we agree with you about the correct interpretation of the statute, we need not decide the jurisdiction.
GENERAL VERRILLI: There would be no reason to decide the jurisdictional issue.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Don’t you want to know the answer?
(Laughter.)
GENERAL VERRILLI: Justice Kennedy, I think we all want to know the answer to a lot of things in this case.


83 posted on 03/26/2012 11:29:59 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Hmmm.. This thread should get top billing in ‘Breaking’ and stay there.


84 posted on 03/26/2012 11:31:58 AM PDT by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Yeah, real funny. Lady Liberty is choking on her own vomit, and SCOTUS is standing around yucking it up.


85 posted on 03/26/2012 11:39:18 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

What’s WORSE is that the conservative Justices don’t want Kagan to recuse either!


86 posted on 03/26/2012 11:50:23 AM PDT by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

Isn’t there a compelling need to address the Constitutionality of 0bamacare IMMEDIATELY due to it’s wide sweeping economic impact, especially if it were to be implemented then deemed unconstitutional? The level of economic devastation and industry restructuring has severe consequences for America; EVERY business and EVERY citizen in the United States.


87 posted on 03/26/2012 12:16:29 PM PDT by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK; onyx; caww; Gator113; Marguerite
""Two years ago Barack Obama signed into law the most dangerous legislation in generations. Obamacare will ultimately lead to a government takeover of healthcare. It empowers bureaucrats at the expense of patients. It regulates doctors and the practice of medicine more than ever before. It taxes businesses and penalizes citizens for not complying with federal fiat. It cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars, threatening seniors' access to care. It raises taxes by $500 billion. And it's a new entitlement that will cost untold trillions in the future. "

Statement by Newt Gingrich

88 posted on 03/26/2012 12:18:50 PM PDT by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Justice Alito to General Verrilli:

“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”

Its easy to see which one is Foghorn and which one is Dawg ...

89 posted on 03/26/2012 12:32:06 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Dictator Baby-Doc Barack has ALWAYS ignored The US Constitution, ESPECIALLY with Obama”care.”

The cancer of Obama”care” now has invaded World Finances as Obama last week choose a “Public health expert” for the World Bank Presidency.

Romney has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”

Senator (R Tn) Son-of-a-Mitch McConnell has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”
_______

The major problem with THE NINE SUPREMES is that they are chosen for political reasons by the POTUS, and then they vote as an un-accountable democracy, for a Nation that is NOT a Democracy, but a REPUBLIC.

As a result, THE NINE SUPREMES commonly vote 5 to 4 on most issues. Constitutionality is seldom a consideration, and their up-coming ruling on Obama”care” will prove my point.

Now is the time to stand and deliver to address our grievances to the dictates of the Left.

Oppose the dictates of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack!

Our ONLY chance to ABOLISH Obama”care” rests with THE NINE SUPREMES, because Romney will be defeated by Obama.

IMHO, if Romney is anointed as the RNC Nominee, THE main issue in the National Election, Obama”care,” will be taken off the campaign table. Hence, Romney will not only lose, but suffer another crushing, and sadly typical, RINO defeat.

To those who want poster ideas, here are a few ideas for demonstration posters:

Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.

Obama”care” was 2700 pages long, and is still being written, but not by Congress: witness the forced contraception coverage recently added by HHS Regulators.

Obama”care” has caused “The Catholic Spring.”

Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.

Obama”care” is designed to be a US Federal Government monopoly, with no competition.

Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.

Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.

Impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything that the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.


90 posted on 03/26/2012 1:06:58 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

Impeach Kagan? Get ready for some ‘cards’ to be thrown at you; anti-Semitic, sexist and homophobic. Isn’t there a card for obese people too? Just look at what 0bama gets away with using just ONE card.


91 posted on 03/26/2012 1:44:05 PM PDT by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

BFL. need to read through the transcripts tonight


92 posted on 03/26/2012 2:38:40 PM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

“The government has no right to tell you what kind of car to drive, what kind of light bulbs to use, what kind of foods to eat, or what kind of TV to buy.”

Correct, but they are doing it anyway.

More and more.


93 posted on 03/26/2012 4:29:17 PM PDT by hummingbird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’
RBG: ‘....if they pay the penalty.’
SG: ‘Yes: if they pay the tax.’

Alito: (I think) ‘You keep saying “the tax”...’ (laughter)
SG: ‘The tax-penalty’


I always believed taxes were a punishment. Probably for the crime of being American.


94 posted on 03/26/2012 4:57:35 PM PDT by gitmo (Hatred of those who think differently is the left's unifying principle.-Ralph Peters NY Post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
“Senator (R Tn) Son-of-a-Mitch McConnell has promised to “Repeal and REPLACE” Obama”care.”

I don't know if this applies, but Tennessee’s TennCare is breaking Tenn.

95 posted on 03/26/2012 5:36:10 PM PDT by hummingbird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
I also beleive she is violation of the law.

Right ... who's going to go after her for a violation of federal law? AG Holder? Snowball's chance.

96 posted on 03/26/2012 9:07:41 PM PDT by Fast Moving Angel (Newt's not a perfect candidate but Jesus isn't running this year. - shoff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

“involuntary servitude”?

Heck yeah!


97 posted on 03/26/2012 11:26:25 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (This hobbit is looking for her pitchfork...God help the GOP if I find it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: All
Today is the Big Day

Tuesday: oral arguments on the Constitutionality of the individual mandate.

The event is already underway (10a-Noon Eastern time): CSPAN will have the audio beginning around 1pm EDT. The interesting part will be seeing how the opposition and the liberal justices attempt to spin their perversion of the Constitution and the verbal cues that are heard as a result.

98 posted on 03/27/2012 7:40:52 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: All
Live Blog from the National Review: Day Two
99 posted on 03/27/2012 7:48:40 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
janetadamy: #supremecourt From @louiseradnofsky inside court: Tough questions from Kennedy on if gov can require Americans to carry insurance or pay fee
100 posted on 03/27/2012 7:52:18 AM PDT by alancarp (Liberals are all for shared pain... until they're included in the pain group.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 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