Skip to comments.Justice Roberts Pleads: "Lie To Me"
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 ...
“They were making a political argument”
In other words they were BSing
Well, you can call it whatever you want, I suppose.
I would remind you of what Yamamoto said after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
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.
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.
And the longer ObamaCare stands, the longer it has to enmesh its nasty tentacles into every aspect of our lives.
“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.
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.
That does not, however, mean it is ALL bad.
That is why the GOP has to win in November
As Roberts stated in essence
The voters elected the boobs that wrote this thing
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!”
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
Pretty cool about the umps
I’ll have to remember that
Amen! But that makes us those ‘silver lining’ window-lickers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.