Posted on 06/28/2012 1:47:53 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the Court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.
snip
Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the Court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Really amazing that I never hear of the SCOTUS being partisan when it overturns laws conservatives like. I think it’s a safe bet that DOMA will be overturned but I will damn surprised if the word “partisan” comes up when the MSM goes crazy. Heads I win tales you lose situation.
Legislating from the bench is not finesse.
If SCOTUS wanted to give Congress direction as to how to pass a version of the law they would regard as Constitutional, they should have struck this version down, and said rewrite it and instead of calling it a penalty, call it a tax.
Instead they have to ignore the fact the writers of the legislation argued to SCOTUS it WAS NOT A TAX, ignoring lawmakers’ intent, and rewriting it for them. They do not have the power to rewrite legislation. It should have been sent back to Congress to re-do.
The dissent did chide the majority for the breezy way they addressed this question, but they did not go so far as to say that they believed the tax was unconstitutional as a non-apportioned head tax.
Apparently they were in such a hurry to get the decision out the door they didn't deliberate sufficiently on this question.
If Clinton decided how many children one can have, how are the Hispanics having so many?
Congress has the authority to repeal its own laws. Think Prohibition. That was a Constitutional Amendment reversal. If they can do that, they can repeal a lower law.
If they repeal it there’s no basis to say they can’t repeal a law they passed prior.
If I was Ford Motor Company I would be concerned with the Congress taxing every non-GMC vehicle owner since the gubmint owns GM.
What is the difference between that and Obamacare where now a person can be taxed until they submit to buy gubmint health insurance...
You’re right on Krauthammer’s take on Robert’s decision. But I’m not sure you’re right on Romney. He’s already come out and said he would ask for revocation if elected. If he goes back on that, he nullifies his most important campaign promise. Even for Romney, I have trouble seeing that happen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve seen thousands of threads that list the similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare. Sure, Mittens would revoke Obama’s forced mandates.
Only to replace them with more of the SOS.
Congress has the authority to repeal its own laws. Think Prohibition. That was a Constitutional Amendment reversal. If they can do that, they can repeal a lower law.
If they repeal it there’s no basis to say they can’t repeal a law they passed prior.
Our system of laws is NOT the Medes and Persians, where once a law is on the books, it can’t be changed. Laws are modified and sections are taken away and replaced with NOTHING equivalent all the time.
You're hilarious.
It's like telling somebody that Gumby won't bend anymore.
(Oh well, At least you inspired a new tagline)
Why not? He rendered the 10th amendment null and void just 2 says earlier.
Oh good, now we have no reason to respect congress, the executive, and now the courts. Nothing left of our formerly great country.
Well to overcome filibusters in the Senate we'd need 60 Senators willing to vote to repeal. Right now we have 47, right.
Anyone think we can get to 60? Anyone? Mr. Bueller?
OK, I didn't think so. Anyone think Mitch McConnel with end the filibuster rule? Anyone??
OK. So, it's going to go into full force in the 2012 2014 session after which it will be far too ingrained to end.
Game, Set, Match to the winner: Obamacare!
“If Clinton decided how many children one can have, how are the Hispanics having so many?”
I said he limited how many children “obama’s people” could have; the welfare state of 1996 was targeted (because whites started breeding in the same manner, and couldn’t be denied freebies based on color). Nobody now has the political will to stop the breeding of the Bronze Horde, though their growth is also attributed to the open border. They aren’t just having slightly more children, they are importing brand-new welfare recipients by the MINUTE.
Then what do we need the USSC for???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You ask a damn good question. After today - I’m beginning to think differently on the need for these idiots.
“2. ERs for years have had to eat people with no insurance now even the illegals have to pay for insurance.”
Actually, the illegals are specifically exempted in the law from the requirement to pay for insurance.
There was a thread on this earlier:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2900423/posts
Roberts decision makes no sense. In the first part of it, he says the penalty is not a tax. In part four (?) he construes it to be a tax. There’s no need to interpret what the statute means, because the clear language indicates it’s a penalty. Furthermore, the legislative history indicates it is a penalty, and is not intended to be a tax.
If the majority had held in the first party that it was, in fact, a tax, there would be nothing further to decide, because under the Anti-Injunction Act, the NFIB would have no standing to bring the suit.
I see; I’m not holding my breath, though. Now we get to provide free healthcare (on top of free breakfasts in public schools) to every freeloader, from anywhere around the world, who can make it across the border.
Until taxpayers start breeding again they can expect more of the same.
Like I’ve said on other posts, lots of the folks south of the border think this takes place immediately. SO HERE THEY COME! Remember the woman who said she never had to worry about her mortgage again? “I’m goin’ to Texas and I’ll never have to worry about healthcare again.” Unfortunately, they’re right this time.
If I was Ford Motor Company I would be concerned with the Congress taxing every non-GMC vehicle owner since the gubmint owns GM.
What is the difference between that and Obamacare where now a person can be taxed until they submit to buy gubmint health insurance...
Sorry, “in the first part”.
Re: So Roberts made Marxism the law of the land, because he wanted to seem “fair.
So long Constitutional Republic, hello marxcist dictatorship
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.