Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Roberts Pleads: "Lie To Me"
American Thinker ^ | 6-29-2012 | C. Edmund Wright

Posted on 06/29/2012 4:14:31 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright

..........Later in the day, however, the pundit elites started to furrow their brows and dust off their elbow patches -- and proceeded to try to convince us rubes that we had overreacted. They treated us to all kinds of contorted rationalizations and justifications full of pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook. We got this from Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Thomas Lifson, Erick Erickson -- among others. And while I really tried to like it -- and really tried to find solace or a silver lining -- there are just some basic, fundamental things I could not ignore. The bottom line is that John Roberts just told Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi figuratively to "lie to me...lie to me and I'll like it!" One can only wonder if he liked it as much as Chris Matthews liked the leg tingle or as much as David Brooks liked the sharp crease.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: roberts; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 last
To: uncbob

“They were making a political argument”

In other words they were BSing


Well, you can call it whatever you want, I suppose.


101 posted on 06/29/2012 8:02:53 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

I would remind you of what Yamamoto said after the attack on Pearl Harbor.


102 posted on 06/29/2012 8:05:58 AM PDT by TheRhinelander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Erasmus

If little barry abstard commie is re-elected it will be because of the tantrum troops who refuse to vote for the best chance to oust the commie. These tantrum troops will have that smug little ‘see, I told you so’ attitude and it will never register with them that they have sold their Republic for their smug self-righteousness. Witness how they try to paint Rominy voters as ‘less than Christian’, ‘answerable to God for their perfidy’. That self-righteous misuse of The Gospel of Grace in Christ is telling of what rules their selves, their pride and arrogant boldness to condemn the Rominy voter as defying their defintion of God.


103 posted on 06/29/2012 8:05:58 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: tentmaker
"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

Sounds to me like Roberts is another one of those socialists that have bought into the notion that we're a democracy. This depite the fact that the word 'guarantee' appears exactly once in the U.S. Constitution.

104 posted on 06/29/2012 8:11:25 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

And the longer ObamaCare stands, the longer it has to enmesh its nasty tentacles into every aspect of our lives.


105 posted on 06/29/2012 8:11:25 AM PDT by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Adder

“Yes, Congress has the power to tax but the mandate was NOT a tax until Roberts said it was. “

Verilli agreed that it was a tax during oral arguments before the court. Roberts didn’t create that justification on his own.


106 posted on 06/29/2012 8:11:37 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

I heard a version of that attributed to Abraham Lincoln (perhaps apocryphally).

Lincoln to colleague: “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Colleague: “Ummm, five.”

Lincoln: “No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

For certain personal reasons, this is one of my favorite anecdotes.


107 posted on 06/29/2012 8:17:41 AM PDT by Erasmus (Zwischen des Teufels und des tiefen, blauen Meers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
The fact that we are stretching to find any "silver lining" at all means it IS BAD.

That does not, however, mean it is ALL bad.

108 posted on 06/29/2012 8:21:13 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: khelus

That is why the GOP has to win in November

As Roberts stated in essence

The voters elected the boobs that wrote this thing


109 posted on 06/29/2012 8:39:51 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

You posted in part: “Yes, Congress has the power to tax but the mandate was NOT a tax until Roberts said it was. “
***

Reminds me of 3 baseball umpires asked about their theory of calling balls and strikes: Ump #1 says “Some are balls and some are strikes, I call ‘em like I see ‘em.” Ump #2 two says “Some are balls and some are strikes, I call ‘em like they ARE!” Ump #3 says “Some are balls and some are strikes, but they ain’t nothing til I call ‘em!”


110 posted on 06/29/2012 8:42:24 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: tentmaker

Good points

I would assume that Thomas— Alito— Kennedy—Scalia— were in agreement on those points

Wonder what their rebuttal was to the tax part or if they thought it was still unconstitutional even if a tax


111 posted on 06/29/2012 8:46:11 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

Pretty cool about the umps
I’ll have to remember that


112 posted on 06/29/2012 8:48:14 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
roberts had NO AUTHORITY under his Constitutional powers to proclaim it as a tax... in fact... the SCOTUS never asked for or allowed the tax issue to be debated. He went outside of the decorum of the court and his Constitutional duties and legislated from the bench in violation of both the Constitution and his oath of office. That fact trumps any other argument period.

LLS

113 posted on 06/29/2012 9:09:15 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: tentmaker

Amen! But that makes us those ‘silver lining’ window-lickers.


114 posted on 06/29/2012 9:11:17 AM PDT by txhurl (Scott Walker is my President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
The dissent, authored by Kennedy, argues that the mandate is framed as a penalty by the bill and even though arguments presented before the court attempted to call it a tax, it remains a penalty. Assuming this point of view, the mandate fails on all three counts: commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, as a tax. That makes it un-constitutional. (in the view of the dissent)

The dissent notes:

No one has ever doubted that the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to spend money, but for many years the scope of this power was unsettled. The Constitution grants Congress the power to collect taxes “to . . . provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States,” Art. I, §8, cl. 1, and from “the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase” “the general welfare.”

115 posted on 06/29/2012 9:16:22 AM PDT by tentmaker (vote for John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

I was under the impression that he did. Yes, Verilli said it was a tax and was quickly corrected by Breyer, I think it was that it was not a tax. I seem to recall that exchange.

What irked me the most was Robert’s contention that it was the job of the SCOTUS to find a way to make the law stand. And that is what he did. Maybe I am naieve but I thought their job was to measure the law against the Constitution. There have been plenty of decisions that said, to the effect, if you had argued it this way we would have ruled differently.


116 posted on 06/29/2012 9:44:55 AM PDT by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

I remember Obozo having two swearing ins. Perhaps the second was on the Koran and he told Roberts what was what. That was the first sign of he was a narcissist and crazy.

What would Benjamin Latrobe have to do with it? I don’t remember the picture.


117 posted on 06/29/2012 10:09:41 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

I agree with that, and have said as much. Not all bad - but bad - and bad for no reason. Unforced error bad. We could have had the good - without the bad. Some around here seem to argue we HAD to have the bad to somehow ultimately win in the future. False.


118 posted on 06/29/2012 10:34:59 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

Let me tell you why you are so damned annoying:
First, you cannot follow a logical argument. You keep going over and over and over stuff NO ONE IS CONTENDING.
You also cannot understand the different roles of a Supreme Court Justice and the elected officials of a certain party.
And third, you never actually refute anything effectively. I am done with you - I cannot suspend enough brain cells to continue to beat my head against the wall that is your hard headedness.


119 posted on 06/29/2012 10:38:45 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: TheRhinelander
I would remind you of what Yamamoto said after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

This is why you should not try this at home: to use YOUR analogy and YOUR reasoning - then Pearl Harbor was A GOOD THING - because it ultimately led to an awakening of the sleeping giant. Well goody for you. Yes I agree - this decision was JUST AS GOOD as Pearl Harbor.

Now, don't you feel foolish? You should.

120 posted on 06/29/2012 10:41:16 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
You also cannot understand the different roles of a Supreme Court Justice and the elected officials of a certain party.

Excuse me I thought elected officials swore to be loyal to the constitution NOT to make things up for political reasons
GOP were calling it a tax

If you think they were making it up than they should be condemned also not be given a pass for "political reasons "
121 posted on 06/29/2012 11:07:26 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

Now here is the best analysis I have seen from

http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/06/28/obamacare-ruling-pure-fraud-and-no-due-process/

“Yet this is essentially what Chief Justice Roberts & Co. did. They said the American people are not entitled to an honest legislative process, one in which they can safely assume that when Congress intentionally uses words that have very different meanings and consequences — like tax and penalty — and when Congress adamantly insists that the foundation of legislation is one and not the other, the Court will honor, rather than rewrite, the legislative process. Meaning: if Congress was wrong, the resulting law will be struck down, and Congress will be told that, if it wants to pass the law, it has to do it honestly.

Just as an appeals court may not legitimately rewrite an indictment and revise what happened at a trial, neither may it legitimately rewrite a statute and fabricate an imaginary congressional record. But today, the Supreme Court rewrote a law — which it has no constitutional authority to do — and treated it as if it were forthrightly, legitimately enacted. Further, it shielded the political branches from accountability for raising taxes, knowing full well that, had Obama and the Democrats leveled with the public that ObamaCare entailed a huge tax hike, it would never have had the votes to pass.”

It agrees with Roberts that it is a tax but should NOT have passed muster

I might add even now Obama is insisting it is not a tax
He got his law but not the way he wanted


122 posted on 06/29/2012 12:02:46 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

I should also add that that article essentially says the GOP was right in calling it a tax
So they were not just being “Political” as a poster here claims


123 posted on 06/29/2012 12:05:38 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Or are you thick and simply cannot help it? It has to be one of those two.

The mandate is “in effect” a tax and the whole bill is full of taxes - but it is up to the folks who PASS THE BILL and not those who OPPOSE THE BILL to define what it is. Moreover, it is NOT UP TO THE JUSTICE to define it in a way that allows it to pass muster.

In addition, what the GOP lawmakers called it in their fight to stop it doesn’t have a damned thing to do with the Constitutional question.

Quit being so thick.


124 posted on 06/29/2012 12:34:17 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

“I think Roberts changed his vote”

I can’t buy anything coming from Salon....

But I wouldn’t be surprised - I can also believe in the black helicopter stuff as well.

But I still have to think the world is generally sane and Roberts did what he did because he thought it out.

If I read the tea leaves, this was indeed his “gift” to the GOP, but he’ll never say so. I just hope we don’t screw it up.

One thing I’ve noticed already is that the extreme right wingers who would never vote for Romney have been quiet...


125 posted on 06/29/2012 12:38:32 PM PDT by mike_9958
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

You are being thick
The GOP called it was it is a TAX
You are saying they only used that description for political purposes which would make them no better than lying democrats and you are justifying that

Now Obama is scared to death and once again denying it is a tax
The GOP better be all over this as a TAX just as they did during the so called debate

The SCOUTUS had a perfect right to call a DEFACTO TAX

The question is what should they have done AFTER they pointed that out

That link I posted gives a great analysis of the situation


126 posted on 06/29/2012 1:20:55 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

I don’t know the significance of Latrobe being front and center. It was not there before the swearing in..he was not there after the swearing in..I think it is back now in that place.

He was a FreeMason and called the American’s First Architect.

Why was that photo there?? It was for a reason. I just don’t know why.


127 posted on 06/29/2012 4:32:08 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: mike_9958

It doesn’t matter where the analysis is posted. Read it across the net. And then read the decision for yourself.

There is no doubt in my mind that Roberts switch his vote.

I can assure you that the 4 in the dissent were not happy with this outcome. It’s a betrayal to them because everything had already been sorted out.

What is yet to be discovered is if they left clues on purpose because there were pissed or if they just didn’t have time to fully rewrite and edit the opinions .

200 years from now people are going to be wondering about this

“Finally, we must observe that rewriting §5000A as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States according to their population. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. Perhaps it is not (we have no need to address the point); but the meaning of the Direct Tax Clause is famously unclear, and its application here is a question of first impression that deserves more thoughtful consideration.”

Well,it must not be a tax since Scotus didn’t discuss whether this had to be apportioned among states. RIGHT?????

No, ...

“The dissenters are saying that construing the mandate as a tax would require them to address a constitutional question that they don’t have to address. But the only reason the Court would not have to address this question is if the majority in fact refused to construe the mandate as a tax – which is exactly what the Court’s majority ended up doing.”

The opinions are a very poorly worded because Roberts changed the vote.


128 posted on 06/29/2012 4:41:33 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

I knew about him being an architect; but not free mason. Maybe that is why.


129 posted on 06/29/2012 4:53:50 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

If Roberts changed his vote what is your point ?

He is allowed to do that. In fact the Supreme Court is allowed to go back an re-try a case if they want to. They don’t even need a case.


130 posted on 06/29/2012 6:14:43 PM PDT by mike_9958
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: mike_9958

Switching your vote after the vote has been taken and opinions written is a HUGE deal in the Supreme Court.


131 posted on 06/29/2012 6:21:26 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Says who ?


132 posted on 06/29/2012 6:24:14 PM PDT by mike_9958
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

with every post you prove your ignorance and lack of processing ability.

You have yet to learn the difference between the GOP and a Justice on the court. There is no “GOP” on this - there are various groups and various people taking on all kinds of different ways to attack this law. Your lumping them altogether just shows you are not mentally up to this debate. The whole thing is so far over your head that you and I cannot communicate because I literally cannot get down to your pre school level.

You have yet to learn the difference between the burden of someone trying to pass legislation and someone trying to stop it.

You have no idea, it won’t even register on your teeny tiny little brain, the difference between political debate and jurisprudence. Seriously, your running posts on this topic is probably one of the 5 dumbest threads I’ve ever seen on FR or any other message board.


133 posted on 06/30/2012 5:24:35 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Yeah your insults and calling me names rather than rebutting my points prove you know can’t make a coherent argument


134 posted on 06/30/2012 6:06:20 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Go call Sarah Palin names

“Palin agreed and enumerated a number of reasons why the bill was deceptively passed to begin with. She contends that the individual mandate being a tax was just one of many deceptions. “


135 posted on 06/30/2012 10:59:50 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Palin agreed and enumerated a number of reasons why the bill was deceptively passed to begin with. She contends that the individual mandate being a tax was just one of many deceptions.


136 posted on 06/30/2012 11:00:32 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

I’ve rebutted all of your points and you are just too ignorant to realize it. Your obtuse idiocy is just maddening for some reason. Your Sarah Palin point is just mind numbingly dumb and meaningless.


137 posted on 06/30/2012 1:46:45 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

I’ve rebutted all of your points and you are just too ignorant to realize it. Your obtuse idiocy is just maddening for some reason. Your Sarah Palin point is just mind numbingly dumb and meaningless.


138 posted on 06/30/2012 1:47:36 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Sorry but there are several threads going on right now that agree with me
and
BTW niece to see you think lying twisting facts etc etc are OK if you think the GOP was doing it ( which they weren’t )
in the name of political motivation but when the left does it they are condemned
Some ethics you have


139 posted on 06/30/2012 2:53:24 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Arlis
I won’t be surprised if O is re-elected by the mindless masses who want everything for free......THAT will likely be the last nail in the coffin....

If this country elects that friggin IDIOT again............ I'm still shocked that he got elected the FIRST TIME. I just can't believe we as a nation have become so sedated. It's like we're all in that movie Equilibrium being drugged by the masses by a repressive government. Both decisions: immigration and health care tax....er affordable care act were terrible. The funny thing is...he was the ONE justice I expected to be conservative

140 posted on 07/01/2012 10:18:36 AM PDT by YoungBlackRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 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