Posted on 06/29/2012 6:06:10 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
>> The problem is, the Roberts “precedent” will bind the liberals for about seven seconds. Less if they invest in high speed shredders.
Yeah, that’s “it” for me too.
Roberts could have made all these clever points and STILL invalidated the law right now by voting with the conservatives... and that precedent WOULD have a meaningful dampening effect on the left trying to pull this stuff in the future.
If we don't get very busy and elect majorities in congress and then stay busy and pressure them to act responsibly to correct our course, we are headed for a socialistic disaster.
I fear we may already have passed the point of no return.
Since that sort of political choice ALSO violates the First Amendment, I doubt he would have been fine with it.
Any brute force ruling against zerOcare would have been quickly turned against us, since emotion rules the Left. They would have loved it and turned the sledgehammer back on us with the usual force multipliers.
Conservatives are about reality, self-sufficiency and independence. So, can everyone just stop the drama, look at what exists and go on from there?
I have read, over eleven years on this forum, hosannas to one or another politician who was supposedly the one that was going to save us. I have been flamed by putative puffed-up patriots with principals when I usually warned against investing any human being with such powers. And, usually within six months to a year, the annointed savior would then act in a manner inconsistent with the adoration heaped upon them, resulting in such logical pronouncements as “They are dead to me.”
No one is going to save anyone else. No one is consistent. We are all human. We can’t even agree among ourselves to forgo partisanship in order to gain advantage. We either work together with cool heads and a firm goal in mind, or we will be individually and collectively subjugated.
In this case, Roberts handed us some gifts, but on a dirty platter. So, what do conservatives do? Why, reject the gifts, the clear advantages, and throw them back in his face along with the offensive platter and heated epithets.
Tell me again why we usually lose?
You posted, in part: No, it’s not just like buying gas or earning income. Those are voluntary acts of commerce. Nobody gets taxed for NOT buying gasoline. Nobody pays income tax for income the DIDN’T earn.
***
We do get taxed for failing to do certain things, and have for a long time. If we fail to take advantage of any number of tax deductions by, for example, not giving to charity, or not buying a home, etc. etc., our tax liability is increased. I am sure that there are many other examples, but these are enough to prove the point— unfortunately.
That's what the CJ meant by his comment that they were not opining on the soundness of the act. Elections have consequences. At least in theory any Congress wanting to enact a "tax" on not having an electric car or solar powered water heater would have to present it as such. Hopefully an informed citizenry would keep them in check. If we don't want a tyrant - whether it's our guy or the enemy's - we better all get involved.
I sent my sister away with her hands over her ears and shaking her head like a little kid yesterday when I tried to make her face up to what this law really means. No more miss nice guy trying to keep the family peace. We all have a job to do - now go pay your tax!!!
Sadly you are absolutely correct.
Romney (and I am not a fan) has made a clear distinction between what is done within the laboratory of the States and what is coerced by a Central Authority.
A silver lining, the Tea Party rises up....Romney/Palin 2012 !!!
BS. It is EXACTLY to job of the SCOTUS to protect us from out of control politicians who pass unconstitutional laws. If not them, then who? What else is the Supreme court for it not to strike down unconstitutional laws? What he is saying in that sentence is that politicians can pass any law they want and SCOTUS doesn't have to rule them unconstitutional, even though they are,simply because it is the voters fault for voting them into office. What convoluted reasoning for screwing the American people. There is NOTHING good about his decision and, in fact, it doesn't make since. He contradicts himself and says we can be made to do anything as long as a tax is tied to it. He disregarded the fact the bill didn't call the fine a tax, and he disregarded the fact that the "tax" originated in the Senate, a move that should have gotten the law tossed on its own merit.
Your whistling pass the grave yard, wake the f*** up.
I think the analysis makes sense -
Roberts is fighting strategically. If he gave obozo a straight defeat, he would have handed obozo a scapegoat and all the obots will cry foul against Roberts and come out to vote for obozo;
it appears that Roberts’s ruling on the Commerse clause and the taxing power of congress is in accordance with the Constitution. He might not like congress’s extended taxing power to influence behavior, but he is not the one to protect people from the bad policies of politicians they vote into power. It is up to voters to avoid bad policies by removing the bad politicians.
So his ruling in effect paves the way for us to reppeal this obozocare monstrocity -
1. energize voters to vote out obozo and Dems by exposing obozo/dem’s lies (it is really a tax to influence behavior!)
2. since it is a tax it will be easier to repeal it - it has to originate from the House and it only takes 51 senate votes!
3. once and for all put the ‘commerce clause’ in its place!
In summary - the ruling gives us enough shock to -
vote out obozo; keep the House; gain seats in the senate; vote to repeal obozocare!
This way Roberts himself does not have to face the wrath of the obots (he knows it is much easier to face our wrath than the obots’!)
I agree. As stated by the author, this decision ... has made it substantially easier to repeal Obamacare, and substantially harder to pass anything like it in the future. No future appellate court can any longer find this socialist monstrosity constitutional. 0bamaTax has been unconsitutionally applied. So there will be a whole new set of state lawsuits very shortly.
Just think of the > 1,000 0bamacare waivers. Now that it is a "tax", these "waivers" are capricious, unfair and inconsistent. Every entity in the country who does not have an 0bamacare waiver can sue 0bama for his unfair taxation. Tea Partiers unite!!!
Now that's a winning legal proposition with lasting comprehensiveness. Here's Ken Cuccinelli (VA Attorney General) who filed the first State lawsuit against 0bamacare .....
Victory in Defeat (The Va. Attorney General see's a silver lining)
The House has already drafted a repeal. We need 51 Senators to pass a reconciliation bill that rescinds the tax. The odds are not that bad.
If that fails, the States have options that the GOP Governors have decided to use, if they need to, after the election.
After implementation, there will be ample opportunity to sue under a variety of issues from violation of the Equal Protection Clause to grave harm resulting from the law.
Vote. If you live where fraud is rampant, get certified as an election judge. Refuse to pay the tax under civil disobedience and put your ass on the line.
Or moan and groan and wring your hands and predict ultimate inevitable defeat because Daddy didn’t punch out the bully’s Daddy. That will certainly accomplish a great deal.
No, those are deductions on a tax that only exists if you actively engage in the commerce of earning wages or playing the stocks. A deduction on a tax on activity is nothing at all like a tax created specifically to punish inactivity.
This is a punitive and direct tax, not a deduction on a voluntary tax.
I dug for many years. I never found the pony and we are certainly very much worse off than we were when I started digging.
In a way, they already do.
You can get tax credits for complying with their social engineering. Not complying forfeits the credit and so, you pay more taxes for not doing what they want.
The precedent is set. They cannot use the Commerce Clause to tax. A tax must be plainly stated as such, apply to everyone AND can be rescinded by Congress and/or refused by the States.
All the what-ifs cannot change the precedent. Since litigation can be brought once the the law is implemented, there will eventually be voluminous case law, as well. Statists have elevated case law and precedent above the Constitution, per se. This ruling bites that in the butt.
Did you read the article? If so, what are your arguments against the reasoning therein? If you didn’t read the article, please do so—it makes some pretty good points.
Did you read the article? If so, what are your arguments against the reasoning therein? If you didn’t read the article, please do so—it makes some pretty good points.
The Democrats wanted healthcare powered by unicorns and were given healthcare powered by swine.
Or, some great analysis of the sophistry that is Roberts’ contribution, as the case may be.
Roberts comes across as just another educated idiot in all this. The mental chicanery he has employed to reach his ‘studied conclusions’ is (sadly) laughable.
The Founders were men of simple language but great thought. Roberts has firmly positioned himself outside their sphere as a man of simple thought but good grammar.
Sorry...I’m not buying into the silver lining BS.
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.