Posted on 07/07/2012 7:39:49 AM PDT by Talisker
Please do not offer us apologetics for what that crawling creep did. He could have ended the whole issue with one vote the other way and he did not.
Well, there you have it - - Roberts is smarter and cleverer than everybody else. And, apparently, so is the author of this. If only the conservative chattering class was smart enough to see how smart Roberts is!
This is horse manure. Roberts sided WITH the socialists who have absolutely no use for the Constitution, and AGAINST Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. All the creative spin in the world can’t redeem what that traitorous coward Roberts did when he shot America in the head and then scurried off on vacation with his boyfriend.
To paraphrase another freeper (whose handle I can’t remember), “The Supreme Court now has three factions - - 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and 1 incoherent moron.”
[ WE keep them in power, and this stink is what WE brought upon ourselves, so we get angry at Justice Roberts for pointing out the obvious. ]
No GW Bush put Roberts in power for just such a time as this..
Because BOTH are “progressives”.... to slice and dice the Constitution...
Congress has possessed this Tyrannical power ever since the progressive income tax was implemented and the 16th Amendment ratified.
The 0bamacare tax, as noted by Roberts, is incorporated into Congress' power to levy direct, non-apportioned taxes via the "progressive" income tax and the IRS, which are Constitutional under the (ostensibly) ratified 16th Amendment.
Live it. Learn it. Love it. We the People have always been potential slaves, ever since those abominations were implemented in the early 20th century.
Now all conservatives should know where to focus their anger.
The 16th Amendment (a central plank of the Communist Manifesto) is now exposed for what it has always been: a gigantic breach in our Constitution through which Tyranny can pass unobstructed. That's the fact, Jack!
To oppose 0bamacare's individual mandate is tantamount to opposing the federal income tax.
The 16th Amendment, the IRS, and the "progressive" income tax are Tyranny incarnate.
While I agree that Roberts could have sided with the dissent and thus made it into a majority opinion, he instead chose to illuminate the blatant Tyrannical federal power which has always existed under the 16th Amendment.
This is why I oppose and resist the federal income tax and support repeal of the 16th Amendment. While many of the arguments of the Tax Protester crowd (of which I am at least a marginal member) have some validity (such as the income tax being Constitutional because it is technically voluntary, for example), the courts have historically not supported their arguments.
If conservatives don't want taxes such as those enacted under the ACA, they have no choice but to work for repeal of the 16th Amendment. It's that simple. This is what Roberts apparently meant when he said it's not the Court's responsibility to protect the People from their own poor political choices.
The fact is, under Congress's taxing power, as enabled by the 16th Amendment, virtually any Tyrannical tax can be construed as Constitutional, and that has always been the case. It's obviously a rude awakening for some, but that's the reality of the situation.
While we can all work ardently for the repeal of 0bamacare, someday another Tyrant will come along and try the same shit again. For all I know, this person could be a Republican, because there are plenty authoritarian Republicans around, too.
The federal government should never have been allowed to assume such a power...
It is retarded what congress did. However, retarded doesn't necessarily mean unconstitutional. The fact is that Congress (our representation) has the power to tax. Is some new concept for you?
The precedent for individuals to be treated as corporations is, by your own argument, already firmly established. Any attempt to evade that precedent simply because a new law is in effect, will result in a thorough ‘stomping’ and a future ruling that the precedent establishes constitutionality.
We.are.screwed
There are no plans B that I can envision. We get only one chance to recover liberty, and it must be soon.
First, repeal Obamacare, but that doesn’t solve the long-term problem. Second, establish a new Constitutional amendment to unravel the mess and put a limit back on the government.
What are the chances of both happening, considering the historical midgets who infest our government?
Have just finished (sort of) reading your post...truly interesting...I hope a lot of Freepers will take the time to enlighten themselves. The Federal Government is a bit like the Monty Python skit where they wander through the village calling out "Bring out your dead" and one fellow being taken to the cart is complaining that he isn't dead yet the reply is you will be...this is how Obamacare approaches the people? or just some people?...just corporations?
Who is the author...are you and are you a lawyer? Help me out here and thanks for taking the time to try to educate us.
This writer an idiot..oh yea we don’t haveto pay it can’t be enforced....right....
Like crap...you have to pass it to know what’s in it
Thank God SOMEONE gets it
Baloney. What Roberts did is retarded.
You spent your whole first post blaming us for what John Roberts did. How we all deserve this...blah, blah, blah...while completely ignoring the whole purpose and role of the Supreme Court. How dare he lecture us when he doesn’t even understand what his job is.
Now you want to twist and spin this to a talk about taxing authority. Same thing Roberts did.
The whole law was/is 100% unconstitutional. He couldn’t even get 8 other jurists (liberal and conservative) to agree with him.
Whether they want to force us to BUY a product or TAX us if we don’t it is still unconstitutional.
Roberts is a traitor.
Nobody but people who secretly like Obamacare or are drinking the “Roberts is a genius kool-aid” are buying this crap.
Then lets just disband SCOTUS. They have no other purpose for being.
Dickhead doesn’t want to do his job.
FUJR
At my age I tend to refrain from jumping to conclusions about Roberts’ opinion.
One of the posters here made a good point about the waivers granted by queen Kathy being illegal.
It will be interesting to see if the House Repubs jump on this.
We have got to take the White House and Congress back in November. If we don’t Katy bar the door.
Agreed
Several George W. Bush administration officials have come out in favor of Obamacare, as well as the fact that he engineered and approved a “Prescription Drug benefit” during his term as President. Now we find that his Supreme Court nomination ruled in favor of socialization of health care. To what should we conclude from that except that the GOP does not share our view of limited Government?
The Genie is out of the bottle and not even the repeal of Obamacare will put her back in.
...The Genie is out of the bottle and not even the repeal of Obamacare will put her back in.
But a constitutional amendment would put that genie back in that bottle.
…Point #7: News Flash - The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Knows All of This
But if he knows it, then why didn’t he say it?
Well, he did say it. Specifically, Roberts wrote: “The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”
Did you catch it?
This is the paragraph that drives everyone crazy. This is the paragraph that makes everyone scream that Roberts is crazy. But apply what has been explained above, to what Roberts wrote. He’s talking about what “The Federal Government” has “the power” to do. And as has been explained, you have to ask yourself: do what, to whom?
He says: “the power to order people to buy” Then he says: “the power to impose a tax on those”
He’s differentiating! “People” are not the same as “those!”
Order people - the government does NOT have the power to “order” a free people.
Impose tax on those - the government DOES have the power to “impose” on “those,” because: “THOSE” are TAXPAYERS!...
Talisker,
That’s all just nonsense. The pronoun “those” CANNOT be used as a substitute for just ANY noun of YOUR choosing from within CJ Roberts’ majority opinion. His use of the pronoun “those” must be taken in context. The clear meaning of using the pronoun “those” here in this paragraph is as a substitute for the noun “people” in the first sentence of the paragraph. If he meant to say “The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on TAXPAYERS without health insurance”, then he should have stated it that way, or use the pronoun “those” as a substitute for, and in clear context with the noun “TAXPAYERS”.
And your argument that the word “impose” restricts the pronoun “those” from being used as a substitute for the noun “people” in that sentence is totally baseless.
If the rest of your points contain even a bit of the flawed reasoning of Point #7, then you have just wasted a lot of time and effort for nothing…
Roberts wagged his finger at us to distract from the fact that he did not do HIS job. If Roberts was right, we would have no need of a Supreme Court.
More delusional BS.
This article is a bunch of cr@p. Read Landmark Legal Foundation’s Amicus brief.
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.