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 ...
Me neither. In fact, the title of the article is actually laughable.
Because of Roberts, will ObamaCare stand? YES
Because of Roberts, will ObamaCare be the law for years to come? YES (good luck repealing it, dem's will forever filibuster any repeal attempt)
The very best anyone can say is that Roberts threw an soft-boiled egg at the ObamaCare train as it roared past him.
I feel like throwing up........again.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to know whether the points made in the article have any weight. But, this interesting comment by rdcbn may explain something, hopefully he will tell where he found this out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2900647/posts?page=111#111
John Robert’s changed his vote at the last minute under duress.
The reason he changed his vote at the 11th hour was a form of soft extortion.
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.
If Roberts changed his vote and not strike down ObamaCare she agreed not to retire until the next Presidential term.
Under the circumstances he did his best to come up with the best possible compromise with Ginsberg - one that put the future of ObamaCare directly in the hands of voters in this next election. The fate of Obama Care is now firmly in the hands of the electorate and 2012 will be a referendum on Obama Care.
111 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:42:47 PM by rdcbn
This guy’s spin is as contorted as Roberts’ thinking.
Obama sure looked demolished today!
See my comment above.
If that’s so, I bet she back-stabs him and retires anyway.
Let's extend upholding Arizona... How long before Berkeley or San Francisco decides that smokers violate the clean air act, and therefore are subject to arrest and indefinite detainment until the EPA picks them up?
Or decides to arrest the CEO of a power plant for failing to use a particular biofuel derived from switch grass?
I've yet to see a Roberts ruling that doesn't take into account the long term viewpoint of protecting the constitution. Does Congress have the power to tax 100% of your earnings? Yes. It does. It might not like your reaction to it, but it sure has that power right now. And I say right now, as I don't expect that absolute power of taxation to be as long lived as liberals in Congress imagine it will live.
But most significant, we've finally got a ruling limiting the commerce clause, and a ruling explicitly stating that Congress can not compel participation in commerce. It can regulate commerce, but it can't make you party to it.
That's a departure from really bad rulings of the past, and I sincerely believe that many a filing will be quoting this ruling as a limitation to the Commerce Clause. Expect a lot of revisits of past opinions after this, and a few liberals on the court having egg on their face for having voted to limit federal powers in their all consuming lust to expand them.
I see the Arizona ruling as being perfectly consistent with this unwinding of infinite federal powers. And, no, I'm not trying to turn bat urine into a golden ray of light where all around is dark. These are rulings that will last for generations and are consistent with a constitutionalist viewpoint. Alito, Thomas and Scalia probably overreached in their dissents, but I very much appreciate Robert's viewpoint that the SCOTUS is not the third house of Congress and a restoration of the balance of powers.
Congress ALREADY has unlimited power to tax us. They can easily move the top tax rate back to 90% like it once was.
So long as we have elections, the people are the 4th power besides congress, scotus & WH. If the void elections, then watch out.
Just like the Oklahoma City Thunder demolished the Miami Heat.
Can we all play this game?
Actually, the Cubs won the '69 World Series.
Actually, investors with Madoff did quite well.
Actually, Joe Biden is a decisive thinker.
Actually, the Titanic was an engineerg masterpiece.....
Justice Roberts is a traitor to the Constitution he swore to defend.
He gave leftists enormous new powers today by legislating from the bench.
Hope he enjoys being cheered on the DC cocktail circuit. That is apparently his 30 pieces of silver.
You don't write a 90 page opinion "at the last minute."
The reason he changed his vote at the 11th hour was a form of soft extortion.
IF true then Roberts has no business being a judge, much less the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.
If true, then Roberts should be impeached.
Are you carrying water for him? If so, I think he just drowned in it.
My argument to many of my friends. We dont just need 4 new Senators. We need 13.
The term “Occam’s Razor” definitely comes to mind here.
Disagree with you, but nice Python reference.
What Roberts did here was to find 'emanations of a penumbra' to allow a mandate, just not using that term.
What we have now is an absolute path to whatever mandates the government wants. They just aren't allowed to involve the state governments. This is a path to more centralized tyranny, not less.
Actually, everyone should get to pick and choose which laws of the land they obey and which they ignore. After all, Obama only obeys laws he likes. So, why should anyone else think they have to obey laws they don’t like?
Best analysis so far is by Peter Schiff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCyEC9r_mk&feature=relmfu
Just what is being taxed here then? It’s not based on income, and it is not based on the use of anything, so it can’t be a use tax? So just what kind of tax is it? I’ll tell you what kind of tax it is, a head tax, which is very illegal.
I think I know little jeremiah well enough to know that it's not a case of carrying water, it's a case of trying to make some sense out of something that makes no sense.
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.