Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What John Roberts really did for us
Flopping Aces ^ | 06-30-12 | DrJohn

Posted on 06/30/2012 11:52:15 AM PDT by Starman417

Pyrrhus was king of the Hellenistic kingdom of Epirus whose costly military successes against Macedonia and Rome gave rise to the phrase' Pyrrhic victory'.

In 281 BC Tarentum, a Greek colony in southern Italy, asked his assisstance against Rome. Pyrrhus crossed to Italy with 25,000 men and 20 elephants. He won a complete, but costly, victory over a Roman army at Heraclea. In 279 Pyrrhus, again suffering heavy casualties, defeated the Romans at Asculum.

His remark 'Another such victory and I shall be ruined' gave name to the term 'Pyrrhic victory' for a victory obtained at to great a cost. Later he tried to create a kdm of Sicily, but his harsh methods provoked a revolt of the Greek Sicilians and he returned to Italy. In 275 the Romans defeated him at Beneventum.

The dust blasted into the air from the impact of the Obamacare decision hitting Washington has yet to settle but it's recriminations all around. SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts is getting toasted by the right. Mark Levin calls the decision "lawless" and the NY Times and Michael Savage questions Roberts' mental health status. But hold on- I think Roberts did us a favor.

Roberts struck down the mandate as it pertained to the Commerce Clause and ruled that Obamacare is a tax. A lot of taxes, actually- on families and small businesses.

And that recalls Barack Obama's words to Americans. Candidate Obama and President Obama, that is. They each promised us different things.

Candidate Obama was against the personal mandate.

[VIDEO AT SITE] or HERE

For more fun, watch this

[VIDEO AT SITE or HERE

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said that Obamacare represented a “big middle class tax increase.”

President Obama swore that Obamacare was not a tax.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Roberts ruled that it is a tax. The biggest tax increase on the middle class in history.

Candidate Obama said health care should never be purchased with tax increases on middle class families:

(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; godsgravesglyphs; obama; obamacare; pyrrhicvictory; pyrrhus; roberts; romanempire; scotus; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
To: HerrBlucher
... I don't trust Romney to keep his promise at all, but we will see. We will know in January, because Romney can immediately give everyone waivers and has said that he would. If he does not do that the first day, then we will know he has NO intention of repealing the law.

That's all well and good, but I wish some hotshot reporter will ask Romney if those waivers will fire the 12,000 new IRS agents 0bamcare created, or repeal the raft of new (mostly hidden) taxes on things like wheelchairs, prescriptions and investments. I'd love to hear his answer to that one. There's almost 3000 pages of God knows what in this law, either it gets completely repealed or we'll be finding little turds in the national punchbowl for years to come.

61 posted on 06/30/2012 2:35:59 PM PDT by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

They need to turn DC’s water supply into a EPA Superfund, there’s something in it that affects everyone and not for the better.


62 posted on 06/30/2012 2:38:11 PM PDT by Lx (Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mmogamer
Can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

And there ain't enough lipstick in all the WalMarts in the Nation to dress this pig up...

63 posted on 06/30/2012 2:43:06 PM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

“You just put a punitive tax on nonaction”

Our government levees all sorts of taxes. We may find a given tax, or the magnitude of the tax, unfair, and the Supreme Court has little involvement with taxes.

So here we have a tax on nonaction. We also have a tax on cigarettes. Do we fear that that tax opens the door to taxes on other food goods? Do we fight in court over whether it’s punitive or not?

Theoretically, our recent new “inaction” tax opens a door, but there are numerous “doors” that have been opened over the years. Limbaugh says he’s depressed because the people have no leaders they can depend on — they have only themselves now. I say “themselves” is in the final analysis all we’ve ever had. A good leader every now and then, or a leader that is occasionally good, is helpful, but “ourselves” really must do the work. Nothing wrong with that.


64 posted on 06/30/2012 2:52:18 PM PDT by cymbeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

Thank you.

After two days of people talking down to me it’s refreshing to hear OTHER PEOPLE who get it. :)


65 posted on 06/30/2012 2:59:06 PM PDT by Tzimisce (THIS SUCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
Roberts held strong in support of the Commerce Clause, but where he went wrong was to fail to look at the big picture of the Obamacare LAW itself, it's hijacking of our health care system AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (PRIVATE SECTOR).

Yeah -- He's turned the American Eagle of Liberty into a parrot.

66 posted on 06/30/2012 3:09:05 PM PDT by imardmd1 (...Let such as love Thy salvation say continually,"The LORD be magnified!" Ps. 40:16b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
Obamacare will ENSURE it.

That is right. Right now the people who cannot afford their own health care, only use health care in life threatening situations. When they are given a tax credit to purchase health care (no net costs) they will use that health care far more often. And the feds received no additional income. This is a fiscal disaster of titanic proportions.

67 posted on 06/30/2012 3:17:09 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Starman417; holdonnow
All this spin is ridiculous. As Mark Levin pointed out, Roberts didn't do Conservatives any favors in his opinion(s), and his exercise in legal gymnastics was nothing more than cover for Obamacare.

The fact of the matter is that Roberts caved to either internal or external pressure and apparently changed his vote at the last minute, stabbing Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy in the back.

No wonder he's run off to hide in Malta. I bet the SCOTUS won't be a happy place when he gets back in October.

68 posted on 06/30/2012 3:22:41 PM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fantail 1952; left that other site
Chief Justice John Roberts did, indeed act bravely at the peril of his own personal reputation and credibility. For that, he is to be commended, and in the future, hopefully honored.

used car salesmen fight over people like you.

69 posted on 06/30/2012 3:23:17 PM PDT by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: YankeeReb

Agreed.


70 posted on 06/30/2012 3:24:40 PM PDT by HerrBlucher ( Romney blows with the political winds, Obama just blows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Now it’s illegal to go Galt.

Only if they give the IRS the right to enforce noncompliance. Some are saying as it stands, the IRS can only use the following methods to force you to pay.

Freeze your bank account.

Garnish your wages.

Put a lien on your assets.

People that have fully gone Galt do not have a job and they do not have a bank account. The way thinks are going, there will be very few banks and jobs in the future anyway.

The last item is the one we need to worry about. As long as they do not have the ability to take action on the lien, we should be okay. IMHO.

71 posted on 06/30/2012 3:27:11 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal

Had Robert’s voted to invalidate the entire thing, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Right, but we could have then been looking at a fired up lib base intent on saving their Holy Grail.

Don’t know if it was intentional, but Roberts may have re-kindled Tea Parties BIG TIME and just in time with momentum to carry through the election. It basic politics 101 that anything to do with taxes is poison right before an election. Politics is Chess not Checkers.


72 posted on 06/30/2012 3:32:57 PM PDT by X-spurt (It is truly time for ON YOUR FEET or on your knees)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fishtalk; All
One thing Roberts did was cause me to think the whole notion of a Supreme Court might be a dumb one.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judge John Bannister Gibson thought so too in 1825.

73 posted on 06/30/2012 3:34:14 PM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
The power of Congress to tax and regulate is now as follows:

________________________________________________________________

"The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control."

J. Roberts

________________________________________________________________

"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

J. Scalia, concurring in Raich

________________________________________________________________

Roberts and Scalia are both complicit in nullifying the Tenth Amendment.

74 posted on 06/30/2012 3:36:06 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: bigfootbob

Bending the facts are what the libs are all about. Roberts allows it to go through because he terms it a tax, but then addressing the anti-injunction aspect he deems it not to be a tax.

Those states that were part of the lawsuit should file a legal challenge to the decision, it is incoherent and allows Congress to tax Americans for things we do not want to purchase.


75 posted on 06/30/2012 3:38:25 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (Resurrect the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)...before there is no America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

No, No, and I will never miss GWB.


76 posted on 06/30/2012 3:39:07 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Past is prologue: The American people again let us down in this election cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Another clueless idiot weighs in.


77 posted on 06/30/2012 3:44:56 PM PDT by free me (Roberts killed America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; fantail 1952
I'm starting to believe that there was intent to incite with this ruling. First off, if this country is going to be saved, it IS going to be We the People saving it. Perhaps, this was the lighting of the proverbial match that one day will be looked upon in a different historical light. The opportunity to move events into certain directions do not come along often, and certainly is quite a rare one for the individual.

I advocated the election of Al Gore back in 2000 as an example of opportunities lost. I am confident, his lunacy would have brought about conservative blow-back strong enough to reset this nation on its right track. We are not offered an "Al Gore" very often and missed the boat on that chance. Instead, we elected you know who and he resulted in the thing we have now, which is a far worse option than Al Gore ever could have been. This country has paid an awful price for this mistake.

At first glance, this ruling appears to be one thing. Upon further reflection, it might actually be the opposite. "If" this results in a Patriotic revulsion of all things currently Washington D.C. and introduces a new appreciation for the work of the Founding Fathers, it might have been the best of several ways to get there. Remember, we are dealing with an election cycle and alternate rulings might or might not have been less effective towards the ability to achieve the desired end result. Anger spurs action. Ask yourself, just who it is that is really, really angry right now? I see this as a good thing. Bad rulings can be overturned or eliminated with new law. Let us all work towards getting as many of our type of "law-makers" elected this fall. That is our one and ONLY job to be concerned with.

Roberts ridiculous ruling has simplified everything.

78 posted on 06/30/2012 3:57:22 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

Amen to that.
His ruling amounted to telling us that it’s OK for Congress to tax us not only on inactivity but on unconstitutional items as well.
Even if it is a tax does not the issue of what is taxed have to be legal in the first place?

If it indeed a tax the Legislature should have been directed to re-write it.
If Congress passes a tax it should be coherently written as such with direct intent of it being a tax, not just something that can be described as such due to similarities.

Roberts did no favors leaving the Country in a state of “what may come to pass” in the future.
It’s not his business nor job description.


79 posted on 06/30/2012 4:18:02 PM PDT by bluesjuke (Don't let July 4th become "Remembrance Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: free me
ANOTHER CLUELESS IDIOT WEIGHS IN. Exactly. Once words for purposes of binding law become interchangeable like 'mandate' and 'tax', we are left with judges having the option to rewrite any contract or legislation with which they disagree to suit themselves for any purpose whatsoever.

This is far more cataclysmic than finding out that Susie's mommy is a man or that Joey's daddy is a woman, or that marriage now has a new definition, which by themselves as word changes are detrimental to our culture. Now we have the impossible task of trusting the sworn testimony of our elected representatives starting with "I solemnly swear.." Now that means "I may slip a couple by you if I have to, but I solemnly swear...

80 posted on 06/30/2012 4:19:58 PM PDT by masadaman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson