John Roberts loses it

6/30/2012 | dirtboy

[riri]

that Ginsburg threatened Roberts with resignation under Obama’s term unless the court held obamacare constitutional,

Nah, not logical. Roberts is going to vote in lockstep with the leftists in fear of another justice coming and doing just that? Obamacare is the lynch pin of collectivism. The worst has been voted on.

[jimbo123]

Roberts could give a rats ass about Ginsberg. It was all about the illegal adoption. Funny what happens when you go to Mexico or Bolivia or wherever the hell Roberts went to launder the adoption of his Irish-born kids.

[Eva]

I think that what Roberts did was bow to the power of the state, not the power of the elected officials. The people who elected these officials did not vote for them to pass the monstrous health care bill. The government was clearly over-reaching with this bill.

Roberts is a Harvard trained lawyer. That means that he most likely does not believe in God given rights of man, or inherent rights of the individual because that is not what is taught at Harvard. You cannot believe in God given rights if you don’t believe in God. So, something has to fill that void and that something is the power of the state. If Roberts does not believe in God given rights, he does not believe in the constitution, the Bill of Rights, or separation of powers.

Either Roberts does not believe in a higher power than the state or he does not have the strength of his convictions. The reasoning that you gave supports my hypothesis.

[Aria]

Roberts former law professor, Laurence Tribe, was not surprised by this decision - therefore he made this decision on his own.

Ann Coulter was right - this was a bad nomination for SCOTUS.

[Aria]

Nice idea but sure doesn’t justify screwing the Constitution with this monster health care.

BTW, I have the suspicion that Obama was born in the US but was lying about it for a long time for a couple of reasons - he thought it made him interesting and he got a lot of favorable treatment as a foreigner. So my guess is he’s a citizen who has defrauded he way through his education. We may never find out - especially if we get rid of him in November.

[Sooth2222]

"The stock market went up because the uncertainty is gone."

I'd have to disagree. Europe was up big, but because of Thursday's "European Memorandum of Understanding", not because of the SC.

US healthcare stocks were up 1.74% on the week, but oil and gas was up more at 4.99% and technology up less at 1.02%. If the SC was a non-event with respect to the corporate economy, it was a "BFD" (Biden) with respect to individual choice, freedom and the terrain going into the 2012 election. IMO, Romney seized the high ground on Thursday.

In effect, Roberts said "the voters elected the doofuses who passed this monster. Here's how they can undo this mess with 51 votes." I would have preferred that Roberts voted against Obamacare, but then we would have been left with the previous system which was bad, just not as bad as Obamacare. And little motive on the part of Congress to do anything about it.

Now, if we elect Republicans in November and put them in charge of the White House and Congress, and they still don't kill this, it's time for the torches and pitchforks.

[rollo tomasi]

"Congress has had the power to create incentives with taxes for as long as we’ve been a republic."

Where is the negative tax enumerated at you freaking Statist whore?

Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to com­pel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

… Congress’ desire to force these individuals to purchase insurance is motivated by the fact that they are further removed from the market than unhealthy individuals with pre-existing conditions, because they are less likely to need extensive care in the near future. If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, “the hideous monster whose devouring jaws. . . spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor pro­fane.” The Federalist No. 33, p. 202 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). …

the Commerce Clause, even when supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause, is not carte blanche for doing whatever will help achieve the ends Congress seeks by the regulation of commerce. And the last two of these cases show that the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause is exceeded not only when the congressional action directly violates the sovereignty of the States but also when it violates the background principle of enumerated (and hence limited) federal power.

But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. “‘“[A]lthough this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . .” or judicially rewriting it.’”

For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Man­date merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Repre­sentatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.”… Impos­ing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitu­tional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.

[rollo tomasi]

Again Statist whore where does the Constitution enumerate a negative tax? Do you even understand what negative taxation is? Your c/p described positive taxation (Being uniformed BTW, whoops Roberts, lol) powers.

Try again, Scalia and vast amounts of people who understand the letter and spirit of why the Constitution was established in the first place are still looking too...

[rollo tomasi]

Roberts switched the fine /penalty to a tax, “Extroidinary” activism.

[rollo tomasi]

Courts may not inquire into the motives of Congress in exercising its powers; they will not undertake, by collateral inquiry as to the measure of the regulatory effect of a tax, to ascribe to Congress an attempt, under the guise of taxation, to exercise another power denied by the Federal Constitution. P. 300 U. S. 513. Sonzinsky v. United States

Its power extends to the imposition of exercise taxes upon the doing of business. See License Tax Cases, 5 Wall, ...Ibid

[SaraJohnson]

If the court is not there to protect the rights of the people and the constitution’s structure of government from the rule of tyrants, then why would we have a Supreme Court or take it’s decisions as the law of the land. We should abolish it and use the courts’ money to offset the debt of our tyrants.

Come to think of it, why should not the States just abolish the authority of the Congress and Executive Branches, too since they no longer have the constitutional authority to exist. The people and the States agreed to be a Nation under the constitution and if there is no constitution, there is no more Nation.