FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
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.
Sincerely,
rustbucket
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?
Sam Paine?
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.
Rubbish.
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.
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.