Skip to comments.Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling
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 businessinsider.com ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wonder how this same reasoning might apply to Roberts decision in the Arizona case.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
Not if one thinks their sh!t don't stink...
“Coward” is very little different from “Traitor”.
Yep. Scytl in Spain. No paper audit trail either.
Be angry at Roberts for his ruling - okay. But your comment (and a lot of other comments I've seen) is based on someone's opinion of why Roberts ruled as he did and not based on something that you factually know for sure.
Roberts can’t be voted out. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life (or until they retire).
I know, I know, and considering that taxation must originate in the house as per the constitution, where does this unelected tryant get off creating taxes on a whim?
Who do I submit my complaint to!?
No taxation with representation, Mr. Roberts, I would have thought you would have known such, you hack.
I will not comply.
I hope to read in your memoirs some day that you issued your atrocious Obamacare ruling in order to revitalize the 2010 groundswell of voter disgust with Obama, Obamacare, and Democrats in general.
If this is why you issued your ruling, then I salute you for putting your own reputation in the toilet in order to save the country from another disastrous Obama term. I hope it works.
On its face, however, your ruling will go down as a modern day equivalent of the Dred Scott ruling.
Roberts revealed himself to be a weak minded liberal who believes in multi-culturism and that to deny Obama his signature legislation would have been an act of racism. As Jonah Goldberg explained it in his book, Liberal Fascism, to be race neutral is to be a racist. Roberts did not want to be seen as a racist.
I guess, it is possible to intelligent and weak at the same time. Without the belief in God given rights, we are caught in the void, where power decides all the questions of the day. Is Roberts an atheist? Was he easily convinced that there is no such thing as God given rights because he was afraid to stand up and say that he believes in God?
Please change your freeper name.
Samuel Paine is turning over in his grave today. John Roberts has declared the constitution to be nothing more than meaningless words on an old piece of parchment. John Roberts has expanded the power of the Federal Government beyond all known limits and has destroyed any semblance of Liberty that we once had in this country.
Don't torment Samuel Paine's soul by taking his name on this forum and then promoting the most massive government expansion against Liberty this country has ever witnessed.
Samuel Paine you are not.
Jim, could you force this guy to relinquish that freeper name and open it up to someone who actually believes in Liberty?
If The Supreme Court isn't going to clean up any unconstitutional mess, why do we bother taking any law to that court.
Roberts did shine this turd.
Being intelligent is nothing without courage and sound principles. CS Lewis, when writing about education, said something along the lines that schools are merely producing “clever demons” or something of that sort.
That is exactly my point. Roberts was too easily swayed because he has no fundamental belief in a higher power. He may attend church, but I don’t think that he believes that are men are created equally and that therefore have equal God given rights.
I think that someone convinced Roberts that some people should be more equal than others because they have been traditionally oppressed.
If it really was revolution time, you would be out there mobilizing. There is a lot of big talk on the message boards in that regard, but no action.
Talk is cheap.
Tell me how ostensibly limiting the Commerce Clause has any meaning at all when the crackpot who supposedly did so voted to twist logic into a tornado pile to uphold the most vile, fraudulent “legislation” in history. Roberts is an anti-Constitutionalist fraud, and I can’t think of a man in America short of Obama who deserves more derision. Bob
Right. Anyone like Roberts who has KNOWINGLY participated in the destruction of millions of American lives has no soul. Stop the charade, you creep Roberts. Join your local coven, where you would be among friends. Bob
First, the argument that the Court does not have the job of "protecting the people from the consequences of their political choices," is amusing nonsense. John Marshall demolished this argument with one phrase in 1803: A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.
The concept actually predates that precedent, and is articulated in a weaker form in The Federalist. It is the duty of the Court to protect the people from their political choices when those choices do violence to the Constitution.
If you don't understand something that basic, there really isn't a lot more to say to you.
That's the deal. Tax law can be changed every two years. Commerce Clause expansions can last centuries.
Actually even sillier than your last argument, and that's saying something. A law grounded in a precedent based on the Commerce Clause is no more durable than one based on taxation.
Roberts put a wall up at Wickard. The Commerce Clause expansion of the last century has stopped.
Liberals no longer need the Commerce Clause, and in fact no longer need to make arguments about any specifically enumerated powers. Congress power to tax is now a justification IN AND OF ITSELF for any legislative undertaking. What part of precedent do you not understand?
This may have an effect on interstate CO2 regs, who knows?
Wow. Those rose-colored glasses of yours not only make you see things that aren't there, they also cause you to see things absolutely backwards: CO2 regs which involve a fine, penalty, or tax (they all do) will now and forever be inviolate and untouchable by the Court.
For those who say this is a novel "tax." What is an earned income credit? It's a NEGATIVE TAX on income you didn't create
Derp a lot?
Amendment XVI has long been recognized as a carte blanche and the EIC is no exception.
Repeal it. It didn't originate in the House.
Roberts has already ruled out that appeal, genius.
Roberts' opinion already violates the law by bypassing the Anti-Injunction Act. But never fear! Our intrepid amateur Chief Justice has a ready answer to that: The AIA doesn't apply because Congress didn't realize they were passing a tax when they passed it. So, the fact that this didn't originate in the house can't be challenged either, because Congress didn't realize it was a tax when they passed it.
Kudo's to Roberts for telling the American voter to get their act together.
He's an ass. And so is anyone defending him. Curses to Roberts' for failing so spectacularly to do his duty to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. He has a lifetime appointment for a reason. Telling voters to do his job after he's failed to discharge it is a steaming pile of condescending "Roberts."
It only takes 218 Congressmen and 67 Senators to vote him out of office. They can do it anytime they want.
And we get to choose who votes.
Of course it was. In the "reasoning" which finds the mandate a "tax" he also finds the Court blameless in violating the AIA because Congress didn't believe it to be a tax. That means Congress didn't have to follow the Constitutional process for taxation either.
And by the way, if you've actually read the opinion, you know that the dissent completely destroys the claim that this is a tax, and lists several precedents in nearly identical cases where the court struck down a penalty masquerading as a tax, and finds moreover that "this COURT HAS NEVER BEFORE FOUND A PENALTY TO BE A TAX."
Roberts' opinion is best described in the derisive words of Wolfgang Pauli: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" It is so thoroughly stupid, so wrong on so many levels, so full of logical holes, so internally inconsistent, that "it is not only not correct, IT IS NOT EVEN WRONG." It does not even rise to the level of being wrong.
This opinion is the Dred Scott decision of the 21st Century.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Yours is one of the most informed, apt, and cogent posts I’ve seen on this important subject.
Kinduv like the microbes that feed on the bacteria of the slime under the scum beneath the filth of the refuse in the trench going into the sewer?
(That Wolfgang Pauli was such a hoot, chock full of knee-slappers. Not even wrong...hee hee hee)
That's not at all what the Constitution says.
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior..."
-- Article Three, Section 1
Ginsburg did dissent, in part.
“THEN WHY THE HELL DID HE VOTE WITH THE LIBS?”
Maybe because he’s got a summer vacation in Malta?
“U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is joking that hell be spending some time in an impregnable fortress after casting the decisive vote upholding President Barack Obamas health care law. Responding to a question about his summer plans, Roberts quipped that he thought his planned trip to Malta to teach a class was a good idea.
That would be even worse. Bottom line: Roberts is a coward and NEVER should have been appointed to the SC.
Not according to Mark Levin. The Roberts remarks about the Commerce Clause were from Roberts alone and were not part of the majority opinion.
Notably, this does not explicitly state that the dissenters joined with the Chiefs opinion respecting the commerce clause. If five justices had intended for their view of the commerce clause to be controlling as the majority view of the court, they would have said so by joining or concurring in each others parts. They didnt. There was no formal majority on the commerce clause issue. Should this matter come before a court again, it is not settled as a matter of precedent and no doubt the litigants will still be fighting over it.
After a little shaking out, the assessment may be correct. Roberts kept the Constitution out of play. A tax levied by Congress has been settled long ago. Now Obama is in a spot that will be very hard to get away from. This is a very interesting ruling to say the least. It would seem that Roberts could have just as easily denied taking the case based on the same grounds.
Are you an attorney and know things better than what the Justices of the Supreme court do?
I’m too uneducated and without the correct kind of brain to understand legalese/governmentese.
If somehow this can be used to destroy Hellthcare, good. I just don’t see why Roberts didn’t find the whole dang thing unconstitutional. Even I can see that it’s unconstitutional. Problem is there is too much “precedence” that is unconstitutional, the actual Constitution got lost along the way.
It destroys Obama’s attack on the 10th amendment. It certifies that the house passed a tax based on the 17th amendment. Obama must now clear up a promise that he alone violated repeatedly.
Remember when Roberts flubbed the swearing in of Obama? I thought something was weird way back then. It has now been officially confirmed.
“I just read the transcript of what Rush said. Something is very, very weird.”
The big difference is.....the majority of people in Romney’s state wanted RomneyCare. Romney just gave them what they wanted. Whereas.....the majority of Americans did not or do not want ObamaCare. Big/huge difference!
“Romney: Mr. Obama wants to tax the middle class.
Obama: You taxed the middle class as governor.
Romney: Uh. Oh yeah. Sorry.”
I think when we find out what’s been going on behind the scenes the last few years we will all be amazed, even us. And sickened, and enraged.
Know better than Roberts? Apparently so.
That kind of force has been removed from the Federal ammo bunker. I find it astounding that the main talking heads haven't brought it up yet.
If we get a Congress that does any of these things, don't expect SCOTUS to bail us out. That is the whole point of the decision. Besides, I don't think a Congress that passes anything as egregious as your examples will survive another election. I think most people here are missing that point. Weilding taxing power opens up Congress to defend something people understand and instinctively revolt againt. Hiding behind the Commerce Clause or the N&P CLause is opaque, most people don't know what it means, and Congress can slip a backdoor legislation through those clauses. Much harder to pass a new tax.
While I realize my examples are extreme, they are meant to show that the us federal government can now force us to do whatever they want.
The congress that passed Obamatax was booted in two years flat, yet their legacy will destroy this country.
It’s really as if electing congressmen every two years isn’t enough. It needs to now be 6 months or less.
I also do not believe that the GOP or anyone else who goes to congress is going to vote to remove unlimited power from themselves.
We have to remember what kind of people seek this job.
No senate is going to vote to remove such power, and no president will sign any such bill.
We are now a society who voted away its freedom from some trinkets, and now we are scrambling to figure out how to get it back,
And there really is only one way, and even that would fail.
Bottom line - only future Congresses should be counted upon to reverse legislation, especially something as important as this law.