Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling
Business Insider ^ | Jun. 28, 2012, | Grace Wyler

Posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah

....But while Roberts may have saved Obama's signature domestic legislation — and perhaps his reelection campaign — by siding with the court's liberal wing, he actually did it in spite of Obama, not because of him.

Roberts' opened his opinion today by declaring, unequivocally, that the individual mandate — which requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty — is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's a direct shot at the Obama administration's defense of the law's constitutionality, which largely relied on those two clauses, which give Congress the power to regulate commerce and to enact provisions that are necessary to carry out its laws, respectively.


(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; authorondrugs; businessinsider; chiefjusticeroberts; deathpanels; idiocy; obamacare; obamacaredecision; roberts; scotus; stupidafterthink; zerocare; zerohedge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 301-315 next last
To: sam_paine
What Roberts and you seem to forget is that nearly half of the people pay no taxes, yet they vote.

Also he had the perfect case to squash the abuse of the Commerce Clause and strike down Obamacare.

Lastly, he has thrown the door wide open for them to claim it is a tax, and see if there are enough tax paying voting citzens to do something about it.

I do not share your kudos for Roberts.

241 posted on 06/29/2012 7:01:10 AM PDT by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Repeal it. It didn't originate in the House.

Yep, start with that (and I won't get into the monkey business of actual passage...) Then face the challenge from the first taxpayer who goes before the court to challenge being charged a tax for not doing something. This bill is far, far from being settled law, as much as the liberals want to imagine it is.

Would I have preferred Roberts to simply toss the bill in it's entirety? Yeah, I would have. Will I settle for vast openings to dismantle it as well as a 9-0 vote on the commerce clause being limited? I'll pop the bottle of bubbly for that and make ready for the next battle.

242 posted on 06/29/2012 7:04:21 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel
243 posted on 06/29/2012 7:06:52 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Kudo’s to Roberts for telling the American voter to get their act together.

Really the fake CC argument should have been an embarassment to any American who has a half a clue but I guess we have to pretend to take this rediculous stretch from the left seriously?
I mean the CC argument is elivilent to someone suing you because they slipped on an alleged banana peal on someone else’s property.
Although, it kind of makes Obama look like an ass or I should say even more of an ass. I mean he insisted in wasn’t a tax.
Now the left is spinning it as a win.
it seems nearly impossible that even bone head Team Obama will raise the needed taxes needed to fund this spruce goose.
Or, the votes to fund it...?

244 posted on 06/29/2012 7:07:34 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: winner3000
hm... I think his analysis on the direct tax argument is wrong.

If you think of the individual mandate like .... something similar to the marriage penalty then you can see how Roberts found this constitutional.

Everyone married who chooses not to get divorced pays in effect a marriage penalty on their choice to not get divorced in the form of a higher tax rate. This is an existing example of people getting taxed on inaction.

The government is in affect mandating that everyone remain single and anyone who chooses to get married must pay a penalty.

Nothing is bought or sold, and yet no one claims that the government can't tax couples a higher rate than individuals.

245 posted on 06/29/2012 7:08:55 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

Didn’t Congress just ship our vote-counting to a foreign country? To a company owned by Soros?

246 posted on 06/29/2012 7:09:46 AM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong

:: nearly half of the people pay no taxes, yet they vote. ::

By extension, neither will they be required to pay the HealthCare Tax for not having HC Insurance. General fund taxes will pay for that.

If Obamugabe is re-elected, there WILL be a confiscation of some sort regarding the “inactive” funds found in 401K accounts.

247 posted on 06/29/2012 7:11:37 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Roberts put a wall up at Wickard. The Commerce Clause expansion of the last century has stopped.

He could just as easily done that while throwing out the law. That he treated it as severable at all, much less offered his redefinition of interpretation, is totally out of line.

248 posted on 06/29/2012 7:14:30 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Kind of what I am feeling too really. Are the conservatives on the court just not as smart? That’s what I don’t get. It just doesn’t make a lick of sense. Arguments about what Roberts did actually being a great thing are making me see red right now. Leave it up to our elected officials? We’ve been betrayed by them long enough!

249 posted on 06/29/2012 7:14:41 AM PDT by vpintheak (Occupy your Brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Ruth Bader Ginsberg threatened to announce her retirement at the end of this term and give Obama the chance to appoint a new Justice in her place if Obama Care was overturned.

Why would exchanging one rabid leftist for another rabid leftist be much of a threat?

250 posted on 06/29/2012 7:20:31 AM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Sure, we just have to rely on our elected leaders right? Not like they have any real skin in the game. Their own health and retirement plan remains. I am entirely too pessimistic to attempt to see any silver lining to a ruling that could have killed the bill. I think the liberals on the court are laughin their butts off! Rely on the voters and who they elect to make it right? Ha! Have you seen who we have been electing for the last 20+ years?! Mostly traitors and Lilly-livered weasels. Roberts tried to be smart? Maybe, but he fooled himself and will be remembered as the guy who helped kill America.

251 posted on 06/29/2012 7:21:49 AM PDT by vpintheak (Occupy your Brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: kingu
What I find interesting in the finding is the part that says that the Government cannot withhold established funding to a state in order to force the state to act.

Remember when Carter told the states they had to drop the speed limit on the Interstates to 55 mph to save on gas? The threat was that he would withhold DOT Highway Funds from the states that didn't comply.

Remember when some president decided the drinking age was 21 and was going to withhold highway money if a state didn't comply?

All that kind of manipulation has been tossed in the trash heap by this ruling. Don't think any of the talking heads have figured that out yet.

252 posted on 06/29/2012 7:22:11 AM PDT by Flint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

It’s simple, Bush wanted to appoint a liberal so he tried
Harriet Miers but she was a no go so they sent in a stealth
liberal and we got Roberts. Or, Bush was the bozo that
SNL tried to make Ford out to be and he got duped. Either way
Roberts is not the conservative he lead us to believe at his
confirmation hearings so he’s either a lying snake in the grass or he’s been compromised.

253 posted on 06/29/2012 7:23:35 AM PDT by Slambat (The right to keep and bear arms. Anything one man can carry, drive or pull.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

If he did, he was too cute, by half.
There is nothing positive there. We have been placed on notice that we can and will be taxed for both an action or an inaction, whichever the government deems fit at the time. They just can’t use the Commerce Clause as justification.

The right thing to do was nullify the entire thing, kick it back to the legislature and have them re-vote on the mandate as a tax. But instead, he dispensed with the messy legislative process and wrote and approved it for them..

No Mr Roberts, we don’t need to be save from ourselves, we need to be saved from black robed idiots that forget why the constitution provided the power of making law and levying taxes to the representatives of the people, not yourself.

254 posted on 06/29/2012 7:34:44 AM PDT by newnhdad (Where will you be during the Election Riots of 2012/2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

I wonder how this same reasoning might apply to Roberts decision in the Arizona case.

255 posted on 06/29/2012 7:35:07 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]


Insofar as it’s a line item on your income tax form I can grudgingly accept the notion “it’s a tax”, comparable to the reprehensible “you owe $1000 unless you have a kid with a SS#”. The terminology doesn’t line up with the semantics, but the end practical result is the same: you’re taxed $X unless you can demonstrate a qualifying deduction, which is a long-accepted norm.

As you note, as such the free-flowing exemptions to supporters come to a screeching halt today - or it gets ugly for Barry.

Insofar as very few people won’t be able to claim the qualifying deduction, or won’t otherwise have other deductions reducing total tax to $0 (the infamous 47%), the number of people actually subject to the tax will be very small and very little money raised thereby (well, relative to the spending Barry alleges it will offset).

256 posted on 06/29/2012 7:39:00 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Flint
"What I find interesting in the finding is the part that says that the Government cannot withhold established funding to a state in order to force the state to act."

It does seem to be the one piece of good news, but could they turn around and pass a targeted tax directed at red states that would tax any state that didn't expand the medicaid rolls. It is hard to rule out any idea in this environment.

257 posted on 06/29/2012 7:44:51 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

Thanks for the link to Mr. Schiff’s commentary. Very timely as usual.

What a shame Connecticut didn’t see fit to send him to DC.

258 posted on 06/29/2012 7:51:14 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone ('We the People' can and will take this country back...starting today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

It was never the intent of the democraps to raise revenue. It has always been their agenda to collpase the insurance industry and establish ‘single payer’. It has always been the agenda of these same treacherous democrats to collapse the US economy so we the people are no longer sovereigns and The UNited States come under UN/global governance. Roberts has handed the treacherous bastards the means by which they can now herd US all via punative taxation ... unless we throw this sh!t out with extreme prejudice.

259 posted on 06/29/2012 7:56:19 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

If tax law can be changed veery two years, then how do we change the tax law ROBERTS enacted yesterday?

Tell me, how do we vote Roberts out?

When’s he up for re-election, and what is his district?

260 posted on 06/29/2012 8:12:15 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 301-315 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
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson