I heard most of his show today. He was rather downbeat. Quite atypical of him. But I suspect he knows like we all do that if Obamacare stands, it’s the end of America.
The Supreme Court has just become irrelevant. It is now merely another political branch. The court’s complete disregard of our constitution has relegated us to Banana Republic status.
Don’t be sick. Don’t cry. Don’t let laughing dems get to you.
Now is the time to fight.
This is only the latest travesty in a long line of travesties brought to you by the con artists in businesses suits in the District of Criminals.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, held while the “individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause,” it is valid as an exercise of the taxing power granted the federal government by the Constitution.
One practical effect of today’s ruling is that by removing the ObamaCare scheme from its safe and secure Commerce Clause mooring, the Supreme Court has rewritten the law and converted the individual mandate into a tax, thus placing it within the authority of Congress to define.
This is judicial activism at its finest. The Supreme Court was so determined to endow the federal government with unlimited power and to toss the notion of enumerated powers onto the scrap heap of history that it was willing to effect a fundamental change to the law as enacted by Congress and the President.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court not only re-wrote ObamaCare, but it simultaneously united the power of making and interpreting law into their own unelected hands.
It has been said “that we get the government we deserve!”
sadly...he was right on every point...
I really wanted some hope this morning...
the only hope I have is that this ruling is so unusual, leaves so much left undecided, so bizzare, that IF we can get a pub prez and senate, we could get a 3-4 more actual conservative judges in there to revisit this travesty and overturn it....
God save us all...
ONWARD TO VICTORY!
Taxes are used in many ways to affect what we buy. It's constitutionally acceptable to tax the purchase of undesirable goods to promote the sale of desirable goods, even when the decision as to what are desirable and undesirable goods is a political matter. However, we do not tax the simple failure to purchase "desirable" stuff. Nor should we.
The decision has given future Congresses a large bucket of worms with which to fish for votes and to do just about anything they wish, far beyond what the Commerce Clause permits.
Me and you, Rush. I’m still sick. And angry. My country is being taken away from me.
Good.
I hope is stays ill for a long time.
He did a lot to make this happen.
I am literally sick also.
In my mother’s lifetime she has seen us grow into a wonderful Christian country that mostly used its power for good to a Godless socialist hellhole where the lowest common demonitor will be the benchmark. We haven’t even hit bottom yet but I figure we must be getting there when I look at Drudge and see naked zombies eating other people or influental gay activists being arrested for child porn - some involving one year old children being sodomized. Self reliance and decency has been transformed into begging the government to redistribute your fellow citizens money - and getting away with whatever you can because it’s your “right”.
I don’t see how we can get our country back without a war.
I heard him.
And yes, I’ve been sick again since yesterday. 2 hrs sleep last night.
I despise these people and damn those media fools that tried to spin it and give me pablum about how effing brilliant Roberts was. Horsecrap.
Thank God the TV is in the repair shop. In fact, the longer I am without it the less I want it.
Rush is right and wrong on this. Of course this is a travesty. Of course this is a fraud. And of course when all is said and done it will mean socialized medicine and anything else the PTB want to shove down our throats.
But where he is wrong is in not seeing the clear win. Because what Chief Justice Arnold did in one little ruling is lay bare the nature of what we’re dealing with: a game that is completely rigged. We cannot win the game playing under the existing rules. If we want to win we need to either change the rules or pick up our marbles and leave. Or both.
The truth may make you sick, but it will also set you free.
I listened to Rush’s show at work and caught the first few minutes of Hannity in the car on the way home (my commute is really short), and Hannity brought up something that made me go “holy ***t” and reevaluate the ruling.
Rush was wondering why Ginsburg wrote a dissent on her own victory. The reason? Long-term, they just got the screw job of all screw jobs. Roberts slammed the door shut on coercive use of the Commerce Clause (whicn could be defended with a Senate filibuster) and forced that ObamaCare and all similar tactics rely on tax law.
This is significant because repeal of taxes can *never* be filibustered. When repeal passes the House on the 11th, there *will* be an up-or-down vote in the Senate—it *cannot* be filibustered. So in that sense, Roberts was right—every time the Dems try something underhanded like this, we’ll now always have a fair chance to take it out on their hides—they won’t be able to rely on Senators from a few blue states. They wanted to be able to have NY, NJ, CA, et. al. be able to thwart the will of everyone else, but now that avenue is closed to them.
Roberts screwed their long-term plans BIG time.
Initially, from 1990 to 1993, Souter tended to be a conservative-leaning justice, although not as conservative as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas or William Rehnquist. In Souter's first year, Souter and Scalia voted alike close to 85 percent of the time; Souter voted with Kennedy and O'Connor about 97 percent of the time. The symbolic turning point came in two cases in 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the Court reaffirmed the essential holding in Roe v. Wade, and Lee v. Weisman, in which Souter voted against allowing prayer at a high school graduation ceremony. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Anthony Kennedy considered overturning Roe and upholding all the restrictions at issue in Casey. Souter considered upholding all the restrictions but still was uneasy about overturning Roe. After consulting with O'Connor, however, the three (who came to be known as the "troika") developed a joint opinion that upheld all the restrictions in the Casey case except for the mandatory notification of a husband while asserting the essential holding of Roe, that a right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution.
After the appointment of Clarence Thomas, Souter moved to the middle. By the late 1990s, Souter began to align himself more with Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on rulings, although as of 1995, he sided on more occasions with the more liberal justice, John Paul Stevens, than either Breyer or Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees. O'Connor began to move to the center. On death penalty cases, worker rights cases, criminal rights cases, and other issues, Souter began voting with the liberals in the court. So while appointed by a Republican president and thus expected to be conservative, Souter came to be considered part of the liberal wing of the court.
Roberts is probably on a David Souter career path at this time. What is it that seduces these guys to the anti-Constitution side? Are they simply weak-willed or weak-minded and thus easily swayed?
Well, at least he'll have Obamacare to fall back on.........
THe world is upside down.
Even though there is no reason to imagine it, we can expect Obama to win in 2012.
Yesterday I would have agreed with Rush. But after thinking about it I think it could turn out ok. Roberts basically said that if voters are stupid enough to put these idiots in office, don’t expect us (SCOTUS) to clean the mess. It’s up to the voters to do that. I hate the ruling but hey, I can hope for the best.