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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-297 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]

To: Nifster
And which imbecile would that be? Roberts is not an elected official. How is the US deserving of such a moron?

The imbecile I was referring to is Obozo.

221 posted on 06/29/2012 2:01:59 AM PDT by verga (Every single cult leader believes in home schooling....Think about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Bingo. This is a disaster beyond words.


222 posted on 06/29/2012 3:14:25 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK
Right on target. AND it sets the Court up as being nonpartisan if it has to rule of - eligibility.
223 posted on 06/29/2012 3:23:27 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

“And I am paying their salaries....Why?”

Because we live under a Central Command socialist government run by both progressive parties and they hate Conservatives... that is the truth.

LLS


224 posted on 06/29/2012 3:58:17 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
cokie is thrilled I am sure. roberts... dirtbag is the nicest thing I can muster for him this morning... and that is considerably throttled back from what I truly think of him.

LLS

225 posted on 06/29/2012 3:59:59 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The problem is, it ratifies the plan as constitutional when looked at as a tax. Which, in turn, opens Congress to the possibility of taxing people for not doing something, as well as passing tax legislation disguised as a benefit package. Finally, the legislation originated in the Senate. All tax legislation must originate in the House, making this legislation unconstitutional on its face.

What’s left is for the American people to rise up and demand repeal. The obvious way to do this is to sweep Romney into office. He’s already on record stating he’d work to repeal (not “replace”, I saw the video...) this bill on his first day in office. Also, Congressional Republicans have begun efforts to see to its repeal. Will it happen? Who knows. But sweeping Romney into the Presidency over this will be a mandate.

I was criticized yesterday for bringing this up. But I doubt that individual considered the fact that Romney was serving a single, liberal state when he signed RomneyCare into law. Now, he’s on the National stage, and if swept into office on a mandate, he’ll find it much harder (especially if the GOP is behind repeal based on their election results) to renege on his campaign promise.

But that’s where we have to go if this is to have a positive outcome. And there’s no guarantee that we’ll get there. And there’s no thanks to be given Roberts for a decision that was so political, so convoluted, just to make the USSC appear above the fray. So, yes, you’re being unreasonable.


226 posted on 06/29/2012 4:10:01 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

227 posted on 06/29/2012 4:14:46 AM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I think he might very well have lit a fuse that will end up destroying it.

The operative word in that comment is "might". It's now up to us. Are we up to it?

228 posted on 06/29/2012 4:18:59 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Are we up to it?

I'm up to it.
229 posted on 06/29/2012 4:24:10 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK; hoosiermama

You and I pretty much agree on this (see my post #226). I’ll simply point out, as I did there, it really is up to the electorate now.

Sure, Romney has come out saying if we don’t want ObamaCare we have to vote Obama out of office. And he’ll start work on repealing it the first day in office. And Cantor has scheduled something in the House in mid-July. But if we’re going to get this done, it will have to be a mandate from the people that sweeps Romney into office. It will have to be a clear mandate, or else congress, in time, will again become the dullards they are.

What rankles me about this, is Roberts playing games when the legislation (in his own words) was clearly unconstitutional due to the mandate failing the commerce clause. This could have been a slam dunk, except he decided to play with his ruling to buck up the face of the SC. On a ruling this momentous, that’s not the time to play around. Not to mention that as a tax, it should have originated in the House. Didn’t he even realize this point?

Anyway, we basically agree, only I hold animosity over this.


230 posted on 06/29/2012 4:28:17 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Oh, I know you are. So am I. So are most others here on FR. But there’s a great unwashed out there and if we do it, it’ll have to become a campaign driven around repeal. The public will have to be washed in the promise of taxation to the point where they say “Enough!” And that’s what remains to be seen. Remember, we don’t have the MSM in our corner to get the word out.


231 posted on 06/29/2012 4:30:40 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I understand your point but it's not Robert's job to make us eat our peas; it's his job to determine the Constitutionality of that flaming heap of dung known as Obamacare. He could have voted the way he should have and then made a public statement excoriating the Congress for continually playing the SCOTUS game against the people with their contemptuous legislation.
232 posted on 06/29/2012 4:33:27 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Go back and look at all of my other posts on this matter. Roberts has ruled that ObamaCare is constitutional on the grounds that were the basis of this legal challenge, but there is a whole other set of legal arguments that will be made later when other legal challenges are filed on matters that could not be included in this legal challenge because nobody had any legal standing to challenge them. As I posted on another thread yesterday ...

What a lot of people are overlooking here is that this particular Supreme Court decision involved only the legal challenge that was brought by the plaintiffs in this case (the 28 states who challenged ObamaCare, I believe). The reality is that a whole host of other legal challenges to ObamaCare are looming in the future or still in play right now. The biggest one is the legal challenge brought by religious groups who are arguing against ObamaCare on First Amendment grounds (this was not part of the case that was just decided). Additional legal challenges will be brought as more and more provisions of ObamaCare are implemented. These challenges can't be brought yet because a plaintiff has to demonstrate that they've been directly affected by an unconstitutional law, and they can't make that case until these provisions are implemented.

My prediction is that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to overturn much (if not all) of ObamaCare in one of these future cases on very different grounds than what was argued in the case that led to today's decision. I also predict that Roberts will be the one writing the majority decision.

I think the dissenters in today's decision all made the right points -- but they are going to be more relevant in other cases brought by different plaintiffs and argued on different grounds.

The big news today is that Kennedy wants to overturn ObamaCare in its entirety as unconstitutional. He'd have a hard time reversing himself and walking back on that one in a future case.

233 posted on 06/29/2012 4:37:25 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Actually, doing a bit of homework it seems Roberts may have been correct in his ruling based on past case law.

See: United States v. Kahriger,Marchetti v. United States, and Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.

Since this is no longer a ‘mandate’ from the government, but some sort of ‘tax’ which will require a statement of self incrimination...it violates the precedence set in Marchetti v. United States.

This new aspect will need to be argued if the ‘tax’ ever get applied.


234 posted on 06/29/2012 4:44:49 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
Girlene:

One of the problems with having the Supreme Court rule on ObamaCare in June 2012 is that most of the legal arguments against ObamaCare cannot be brought up in court ... YET.

You and I, for example, cannot file a legal challenge to ObamaCare because we don't have the legal standing to do it. The reason for this is that the most pernicious aspects of ObamaCare (the individual mandate, for example) aren't even in place yet under ObamaCare -- which means we can't even make an argument in court that we've been harmed in any way.

Imagine, for example, if ObamaCare included a mandate that everyone must be euthanized on his or her 80th birthday ... but that this measure wasn't implemented until 2025 when Social Security, Medicare and the entire U.S. government are bankrupt. We could not file a legal challenge to this provision today under any circumstances. Any Federal judge who knows the law would simply throw the case out of court by saying, in effect: "You have no legal standing to bring this challenge because you cannot demonstrate that you have been harmed in any way. Please come back in 2025 if this stupid law is even on the books at that time."

The Supreme Court decision yesterday was based on very specific challenges brought by 28 states. This is nothing compared to the other legal challenges that are in process now, and will become more numerous as new ObamaCare provisions are implemented. For example, by making a determination that ObamaCare is constitutional on the grounds that it is a "tax," the Supreme Court has made it much more difficult for some other future challenges to be upheld on different grounds (the authority given to the HHS "waivers," for example).

235 posted on 06/29/2012 4:52:52 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
As I've said several times in the last 24 hours:

I believe ObamaCare is unconstitutional. I'll bet Chief Justice Roberts thinks it's unconstitutional, too. It's just that it's unconstitutional on grounds that were not the basis of the legal action that was brought in this specific case.

I predict it's going to be declared unconstitutional (if it even survives that long) on other grounds in a future court case that will be brought after more and more of the provisions of ObamaCare are implemented. The constitutionality of these provisions were never argued in this case because most of them haven't even been implemented yet.

I also predict that Chief Justice John Roberts is going to write the majority opinion in the case overturning ObamaCare. Yesterday's ruling brought him a whole lot of credibility to do this, I'd say.

236 posted on 06/29/2012 4:59:23 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Bingo. This is just one of many, many aspects of ObamaCare that haven’t even been challenged yet.


237 posted on 06/29/2012 5:01:18 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: bcsco; BIGLOOK; Jim Robinson

There are so many facets that cause people to become frustrated and angry. If we are going to get anything accomplished we need to get away from the rhetoric that divides and unite in action.

There are those who will work to get 0 out of office...only alternative as of now is unfortunately wmr.

BUT for those who do NOT want to activily support him there are Senate seats and congressional districts that need help.

Can proudly say we got rid of Rino Lugar and nominated a more conservative senatorial delegate here in IN. Replaced a D for an R, Todd Young for our congressional representative. Both should win easily here as well as Mik Pence for GOvernor.
OTOH for many it is too late, primaries have already determined the candidates, BUT we can support the least liberal in our own districts and/or assist candidates in neighboring districts and/or States.

We simply need to get organized and help FRiends see their options.

Am sure JR would see this as activism and help establish a place on the sidebar to promote our efforts.


238 posted on 06/29/2012 5:18:48 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; Jim Robinson

You are absolutely right. I was at my Kiwanis breakfast meeting yesterday when this decision came down. A member simply interrupted our guest speaker’s presentation by saying (he was looking at his smartphone) that the SC upheld ObamaCare. Period, paragraph. You should have heard the consternation, some of us having to get up and leave the room in frustration. And there were over 40 of us in the room (though a few are more liberal...).

Ironically, our guest speaker was our state representative from Springfield (IL); a good conservative and one known to us for many years. What he came to talk about yesterday was the frustration he feels daily in the workings of the legislature, yet an upbeat assessment on how the Republicans are working cohesively to change things. And they have been successful in some areas. Sure, we have a lot to overcome here in Illinois, not to mention Washington, but it’s up to us to get the job done. We have to have the motivation, the will, and the excitement to take this fight to the next level.

As I’ve indicated in a few posts on this subject this a.m., there are some areas that we can focus on in taking this fight forward. We have to present a cohesive message to our representatives and those who are running for office, we have to make voting Obama out of office a mandate; both for Romney and Congress as a whole. And we have to hold their feet to the fire. We can do it. Our one major obstacle, IMO, is the absence of support or coverage from the MSM. But I think we can overcome that if Congress, and Romney, gets the message out about this being an election based on the largest tax increase in America’s history, and the fact that Americans, for the first time, will be taxed on their inaction.

Let’s get it done!


239 posted on 06/29/2012 5:39:24 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; EBH; Syncro; bcsco; little jeremiah; Brown Deer; LucyT; STARWISE
ITMT. we need to do as Roberts suggested and support to elect better representatives that cannot be bought or intimidated by 0 and his cohorts.

Waking this morning it hit me, Roberts refused to take power, instead he gave it back to the people. It is ours to wield.

The TeaParty is active thoughout states promoting more conservative candidates. (They helped IN get rid of Lugar and select Mourdock) Look to them for direction. Support the RNSC to help elect R in the Senate. Let's get a long term, actiism thread organized to let FR know where help is needed who needs support given. We got an R Senator in Mass, however weak it was better than any D. We've helped change WI and the list goes on....Now step back reload and aim . Support the most conservative of the candidates in any primary and then target and help those in any State that would further our cause. Stop eating our own. If the Senate and House seems timid, maybe it's because they do not sense our support. Let them hear from us.

240 posted on 06/29/2012 5:39:52 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Go back and read the history of the ObamaCare bill. It was introduced in the House as some kind of community revitalization nonsense by Charlie Rangel in the fall of 2009. The Senate basically gutted it and turned it into ObamaCare. It's not up to the U.S. Supreme Court to chastise the House of Representatives for allowing the Senate to re-write their bills. It's not up to Chief Justice John Roberts to deal with useless, corrupt idiots like Charlie Rangel who get re-elected repeatedly by the quasi-humanoid mutants he calls his constituents.

That's basically what Roberts' majority opinion was all about.

241 posted on 06/29/2012 5:46:06 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

And another one can reinstitute it. It is the PRECEDENT that is important. That is what SCOTUS looks at in the future


242 posted on 06/29/2012 5:46:25 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: verga

okay just checking


243 posted on 06/29/2012 5:47:01 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Go back and read the history of the ObamaCare bill. It was introduced in the House as some kind of community revitalization nonsense by Charlie Rangel in the fall of 2009. The Senate basically gutted it and turned it into ObamaCare.

You just confirmed my statement. It wasn't initiated in the House as a funding bill. It became such in the Senate. Critics have ever since recognized its tax implications, but the bill as passed is a Senate concoction.

While I agree that the Court should not have to spoon-feed Congress on their duties, to say that the mandate is constitutional as a tax, when it was inappropriately passed, is a disingenuous and harmful decision.

Now, yes. We have to go forward and use successfully the small gift we've been given. But it would have been far better had this been ruled unconstitutional in the first place. It could have been done, should have been done. But wasn't for the sole reason of protecting the court's "objectivity". Sorry, but that's an insignificant reason on such a momentous occasion.

244 posted on 06/29/2012 6:07:24 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

You know that ol saying about catchin more flies with sugar. There is a district in Indianapolis similar to Rangles..(The one where they lost sixty ballot boxes and ended up with more than 100% of the registered voters participating)
Now the grandson is the representative. The state laws have craked down so a reoccurance of the above fiascal can’t be done....BUT the state/local officials are now working with the community to stop the crime, (mostly drug, thugs, and murder) Not saying it will ever vote R, but things at least from a distance seem to be turning around...and there is now a dialogue for further change....Miracles do happen....Keep praying.

It like the child that misbehaves for attention....Only give him attention when he does a behavior you desire and the “bad” behavior disappears.


245 posted on 06/29/2012 6:10:07 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: bcsco; Alberta's Child
Since it was wrongfully labeled and passed in the wrong house, how easy would it be to negate from that point of view. A vote in House? Senate? A lawsuit? by whom?

Do we need to point out the illegal act of mislabeling it so it could be passed in the Senate....just another O-nipulation?

As we work to elect more conservative representation, where do we encourage those already elected to go? (I know, but seriously)

246 posted on 06/29/2012 6:17:21 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; Alberta's Child
Since it was wrongfully labeled and passed in the wrong house, how easy would it be to negate from that point of view. A vote in House? Senate? A lawsuit? by whom?

Ostensibly, I'd think this the easiest route to go. Eric Cantor has already started proceedings in the House for July, but it would have to pass both houses. I don't see that happening before November with the current Senate. But why rely just on that? A lawsuit in addition to ongoing congressional action, just to spur it on if nothing else, may be worthwhile. By whom? Someone on the right who's prepared, energized, to take such action. Horowitz? Judicial Watch? ?????

Do we need to point out the illegal act of mislabeling it so it could be passed in the Senate....just another O-nipulation?

Absolutely. Not only that, but the illegality of initiating a funding bill in the Senate. Every corrupt aspect of this legislation has to see the light of day.

As we work to elect more conservative representation, where do we encourage those already elected to go?

They're either with us or against the Constitution. The House won't be a problem. The Senate? Moreso a problem (even after November). But if we can make this a mandate come November, I'd hope anyone currently in office, who wants to remain in office come their next election, will heed the tea leaves.

247 posted on 06/29/2012 6:32:07 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

You know...I have a problem with saying it was wrongfully labeled. It was not wrongfully labeled. The history of this shows/demonstrates in plain view a willful intent to commit ‘fraud’ against the American people.

They(Democrats) denied and denied this as a tax. They manipulated it into the commerce clause etc. Now, the court struck that part down and classified it as a tax. Essentially calling it what it is...bringing a truth to the fraud perpetuated on the American people.


248 posted on 06/29/2012 6:37:14 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Um, the ruling issued through the pirate Roberts has stamped the bill as now passed and challenged as CONSTITUTIONAL with the previso that the penalty is actually a tax and thus the whole damned monstrosity is constitutional. Sorry, to have to break that to you.


249 posted on 06/29/2012 6:51:19 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: EBH; bcsco
Guess I should have put “wrongfully labeled” in quotes. It was IMO an intentional act of fraud, but where do we go for redress?
250 posted on 06/29/2012 6:53:29 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-297 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