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

Skip to comments.

Maybe Roberts Got it Right After All
Self | June 28, 2012 | Alberta's Child

Posted on 06/28/2012 6:54:37 PM PDT by Alberta's Child

Upon further review and discussion here, I've concluded that the majority opinion of Chief Justice Roberts in the ObamaCare case was exactly what this country needed. He effectively took the heap of crap that had been dumped in the halls of the U.S. Supreme Court and tossed it right back out where it belongs: in the homes and businesses of every U.S. citizen who has allowed this bunch of fools in Washington to govern us this way.

Think of it, folks ... Any obligation of the U.S. Supreme Court to deal with this idiocy went out the window the moment that dingbat Nancy Pelosi stood up on television and said: "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it."

If I were a Supreme Court justice, I wouldn't spend 30 seconds of my life reading a single legal brief in a case involving a Federal statute that was passed even though the Speaker of the House of Representatives didn't even read the damn thing before voting on it.

On top of all that, just consider this: There were 28 states that filed legal challenges to ObamaCare, either individually or jointly. How can 28 states file legal challenges to a Federal law that was passed in the U.S. Senate by a 60-39 margin? If I'm sitting on the Supreme Court and the Attorney General of, say, Pennsylvania (which is one of these 28 states) comes in for oral arguments in the case, my first and only "question" would be: "If you have such a problem with this Federal statute, why don't you take it up with Bob Casey, Arlen Specter and those nine House members in your state who passed the damn thing ... along with the idiots in your state who cast their electoral votes for that jug-eared Kenyan nitwit in 2008?"


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; johnroberts; obamacare; vanity; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 281-297 next last
To: FredZarguna
A thoughtful analysis.

But it actually gets worse...
Because hitherto, the Court would not even have granted Cert in a tax case until someone with standing came forward to challenge the law. In fact, the Court could not do so even if it wanted to, because of the Anti-Injunction Act, and no one will actually be "taxed" by the mandate until 2014. In the instant case, the Court has used thoroughly tortured logic to claim that: 1) Even though the mandate is a tax 2) the AIA doesn't apply, because Congress did not believe it was a tax when it was passed.


I hadn't thought about that aspect. What a mess.
201 posted on 06/28/2012 9:34:03 PM PDT by Girlene (Chief AHat Roberts - should resign in disgrace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Bshaw
Nothing in this ruling makes sense

Aha, he used the Chewbacca Defense.

202 posted on 06/28/2012 9:34:48 PM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice
Everything but the holding is arguable orbiter dictum.

Thank you. The "arguments" of so many beltway geniuses (Will, Krauthammer, the American Thinker) claiming that throwaway dicta constitute some kind of "win" are as tortured, amateurish and ultimately incomprehensible as Roberts' opinion itself.

203 posted on 06/28/2012 9:37:39 PM PDT by FredZarguna (The justification for a tax cannot be the authority to tax in and of itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
The problem with FR is that it is a bit of a magnet for right wing nuts who aren’t trying to analyze anything from a rational or even logical perspective.

No, that is the problem with Roberts' opinion for the majority.

204 posted on 06/28/2012 9:40:13 PM PDT by FredZarguna (The justification for a tax cannot be the authority to tax in and of itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Bshaw
Was Roberts hypnotized? Seduced? Did Kagan and Sotomayor disrobe and give him some hooha to see things their way? Ginsburg?

LOLOL.....I'm kinds doubting that would do it. (hooha - that term cracks me up)

None of this makes sense. Instinct and logic say something is amiss here, but what? Meanwhile we are stuck with the disaster of his (and the other four) decision.
205 posted on 06/28/2012 9:43:32 PM PDT by Girlene (Chief AHat Roberts - should resign in disgrace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

I think Robert’s message boils down to this: Elect the right people


206 posted on 06/28/2012 9:43:53 PM PDT by gortklattu (God knows who is best, everybody else is making guesses - Tony Snow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
“No. Our disagreement harms noone. Theirs does”

The SC has done/said/ruled nothing that the Congress cannot do their job and fix. No one is harmed by this decision while many are harmed by the Congress failing to do its Constitutional duty for more than 40 years by always passing the hard decisions to the Supreme Court.

It is the idiots in Congress in both parties that have brought us to where we are today..

207 posted on 06/28/2012 9:48:13 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: BlueCat

“Does this mean you intend to vote for Obama?”

If you Ever ask me that question again I’ll report you to Admin.

The rules here expressly prohibit outright profanity :)


208 posted on 06/28/2012 9:50:06 PM PDT by To-Whose-Benefit? (It is Error alone which needs the support of Government. The Truth can stand by itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
“No. Our disagreement harms noone. Theirs does”

The SR has done/said/ruled nothing that the Congress cannot do their job and fix. No one is harmed by this decision while many are harmed by the Congress failing to do its Constitutional duty for more than 40 years by always passing the hard decisions to the Supreme Court.

It is the idiots in Congress in both parties that have brought us to where we are today..

209 posted on 06/28/2012 9:52:52 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: gortklattu
In which case, it is gratuitous, patronizing, and entirely superfluous.

It should also be gratuitous, patronizing, and entirely superfluous (but apparently it isn't) for anyone to have to remind the Chief Justice of the United States that there are areas of the law which elections may not touch.

We don't live in a country with Parliamentary Supremacy. The Supreme Court is supposed to guard the Constitution, a duty in which the majority failed today.

210 posted on 06/28/2012 9:54:12 PM PDT by FredZarguna (The justification for a tax cannot be the authority to tax in and of itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

So congress can’t strike down a tax ?


211 posted on 06/28/2012 10:01:14 PM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

IF it’s a tax it’s a budgetary matter and you only need 51 votes.


212 posted on 06/28/2012 10:06:17 PM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Excellent post #191 !!!

As I stated before, many can’t see past this election. This precedent will be a tool for the Executive, Legislative and Judicial for generations (unless there is a substantiative revolt).

So Romney is elected, they repeal Obamacare, all your dreams come true...don’t worry the Center for American Progress, the Apollo Alliance, and etc. have more bills waiting in the wings for the proverbial day that the communists are back in power.

May John Roberts live a half-life, a cursed life.


213 posted on 06/28/2012 10:28:25 PM PDT by Kaosinla (The More the Plans Fail. The More the Planners Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

The founders set up three branches of government, not two. Regardless of whether Congress passes the buck to the SC or not with the crazy laws they might pass, I expect the Supreme Court to do their job. You’re essentially saying because the Congress did not do their job, the SC doesn’t have to do theirs. Sorry, I don’t agree.

The Supreme Court took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They did not today.


214 posted on 06/28/2012 10:34:56 PM PDT by Girlene (Chief AHat Roberts - should resign in disgrace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
The Supreme Court did what the Supreme Court or for that matter any other court does. It made a decision that makes one side happy and the other side mad.

The CJ is acting like every other CJ in the history of the Court in that they defer to the legislative branch whenever possible. As the CJ said if the voters don't like the law they can elect new representatives and change it, that is the traditional role of the court.

I think Roberts is putting the idiots in Congress on notice that for the next 30-40 years they cant depend on the Supreme Court to do the job they were elected to do...

215 posted on 06/28/2012 10:49:16 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Too much whining here since the decision. I hope it blows over soon.


216 posted on 06/28/2012 10:58:46 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rusty schucklefurd; hoosiermama
We'll have to go back a dozen years to when the Supremes rule in Gore v Bush in the Florida recount debacle that was brought before them and gave them a blackeye. They really didn't want to become involved in politics or matters that ought to be resolved politically by the individual state in that case or politically by Congress in this case. But both ended up before them and in the first case their ruling punted resolution back to Florida and we know what happened there and the harsh criticism of SCOTUS that followed.

Roberts' vote upheld the mandate of Obamacare but did so only stipulating that it was in the perveiw of Congress to write and pass tax laws. This is not what the Obama administration lawyers argued in the court, they were going whole hog to make the mandate a requirement with penalties for those who didn't comply...a law. To repeal or nullify that law would take a majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate to repeal. By making it a tax law it doesn't have to meet that standard.

Now let's look a the timing and the season we're heading into, election season. You're right that this isn't going back to Congress for a re-vote yet, Even if it did tomorrow, the House would most likely vote to repeal and the Senate wouldn't or stall until next year when congress convenes after the elections. Roberts knows this but like I and others have said didn't want to play around with a political issue that can resolved in congress by duly elected representatives so he punted.

Now how would you like to be a Dem representative or senator running for office or reelection with a tax hike as part of your platform in these times? The mandate doesn't go into effect until 2014 so there's time but this way 2014 is moot if the dems numbers dwindle to minority status and the super majority in the senate disappears. So you're right once again, get rid of obama and elect majorities in both the House and the Senate and kiss this blood sucker goodbye.

If I've screwed up in my analysis, anyone can jump in and scold me. Just don't bore me.
217 posted on 06/28/2012 11:18:20 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (One out of three ain't good enough, Make November work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Popman

What Congress passed included provisions for a “penalty.”
The SCOTUS changed that to “tax.” So it seems to me that it’s a tax that Congress didn’t act on, and don’t new taxes HAVE to be approved by Congress?
My head is spinning!!!!!!


218 posted on 06/28/2012 11:55:46 PM PDT by txboss (Proud infidel cracker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

It might not be too late yet. Roberts just made it constitutional. Article 1 sec. 1, All funding must originate
in House of Represenatives. It was a Senate bill.
Hope this can reverse this mess


219 posted on 06/29/2012 12:07:21 AM PDT by rlw358
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
In effect, all restrictions on the legislative power have been swept away by this decision. Any law is now Constitutional provided only that a fine, penalty or tax is imposed.

Yes, it's that bad. But it actually gets worse...

That's right, the majority has not only destroyed the concept of limited government with this ruling, but the Court itself actually broke the law in even allowing the case to be heard.

But wait, it gets even worse... Because Roberts' opinion also holds that even though the "tax" is not the kind of tax permitted in the first article of the Constitution, and even though the "tax" is also not a tax on incomes covered by Amendment XVI, it is a valid tax (of what kind he does not say) and the existing case law already permits it.

This is an entirely new doctrine: preemptive Constitutionality. No Court has ever ruled in the past that the provisions of a law which as yet affects no one is Constitutional/Unconstitutional. Roberts' opinion signals exactly that. (See my previous posts for a quote from the majority.)

Bottom line: this is the Dred Scott/Roe v. Wade of the 21st Century. June 28th, 2012: A date which shall live in Infamy.

It's really that bad.

As Bugs Bunny once said to Yosemite Sam: "Of course you know, this means War."

And it does.

220 posted on 06/29/2012 12:55:08 AM PDT by sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 281-297 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