Posted on 07/23/2014 3:46:45 PM PDT by xuberalles
It’s not very often when one man, liable for the most destructive decision in a nation’s ideological history, is presented with an opportunity to eradicate his greatest transgression: empowering a socialist leviathan that became the greatest Trojan horse of excessive government in our history. The real question is, after an appeals court ruling struck down key components of the law and dealt John Roberts a temporary stay of stupidity, will he once again abandon 225 years of proven checks and balances, or will the Chief Justice inexplicably pardon Obamacare for a second time and reward those who lied about its taxable nature, intrusive scope, and single-payer intentions to mislead the masses? Ah, who knew misrepresenting the Commerce Clause superceded individual liberty and unlocked federal intrusion of private enterprise by passing legislation advantageous to killing off the competition? Why not institute a naptime tax on conservative children to fund debtor prisoners that are populated by the IRS? Any conflicts of interest there? Choices, choices!
When it comes to our fabled judicial branch, you either strictly adhere to existing law, as intended, or you interpret them according to what you had for breakfast: vegan activists and code pinko’s. Unfortunately for those grounded in reality, enforceable statutes, far too many so-called traditionalist judges undermine the supreme law of the law by trying to compromise with modern-day leftists who rarely break ranks and could really careless about Constitutional precedent. As progressives first and foremost, most seek to legislate from the bench in order to fundamentally change America according to their politics: abortion, gun control, gay marriage, eliminating voter ID laws, infringing on religious freedom, etc. Can you imagine the sheer carnage and radical change that could have ensued if Team Ginsberg held a 5-4 advantage during the past 6 years: Big Gulps outlawed, Christmas deemed offensive, and George Zimmerman forever a piñata on the White House lawn? Of course liberal judges conveniently exclude the fact that any agenda contrary to the Constitution, i.e. those pesky ideals this nation was founded upon, is inherently radical. Details, details! But Obama is still mainstream, right? Regardless of the left's sitar-induced amnesia, this case will undoubtedly go back to the Supreme Court and if Justice Roberts once again chooses the shackles of socialism over the opportunity of individual and economic freedom, he will undoubtedly need a one way ticket to a banana republic…on a termite powered raft. Tragically, all the fossil fuels were consumed transporting illegal aliens to cities across America. Free healthcare and welfare for all trespassers? Si, senoir!
If the truth be half-known, our government - the most inefficient, incompetent and corrupt institution in America - has no authority infringing upon the private sector by going into business for itself. GM is cataclysmic proof of that socialist disaster. Nor does it have the right to dictate the manner of healthcare we choose, or do not choose, to carry. The Constitution is a strict limitation on government, not individual liberty. Derived from its tenets of wisdom are two of our elected government’s most indelible duties: to ensure our rights, defend our sovereignty from threats both domestic and abroad, and to provide transparency in all of its dealings. Tragically, and most notably since 2008, it has egregiously failed on all accounts; and about 99 others.
If liberals so desperately to help illegal immigrants more than actual citizens, or assist those who refuse to help themselves – that is, bribe their demographic bread and butter at the polls – then they can do so out of their own pocket. It's called choice without usurping our property or violating our rights. The need for healthcare reform - controlling the cost of emergency/surgical care and prescriptions, redefining pre-existing conditions - does not constitute annexing the entire industry, destroying the vital engines of competition and innovation, or sacrificing the lives of our loved ones through substandard, apathetic care simply because progressives want to ensure the survival of Big Government by fostering unparalleled dependence; i.e., their entitlement utopia of blackmailed voters. Truly, what could be more frightening or sickening? Well, that depends on what Mr. Roberts decides in the near future. Fool me once, or I’m a fool with no discernable backbone? Our death panel awaits!
Has the thing that caused him to change his mind the first time gone away? I doubt it. Therefore, I don’t hold out much hope of him doing anything to strike down Obamacare.
Nicely done. Puts the matter of Constitutional government squarely on the Chief Justice’s shoulders. Let him say a mandate is a tax one more time. Lynchings to follow.
Sadly, I’m certain that the NSA has provided more than enough information to blackmail anyone on SCOTUS (or elsewhere), to the WH (and other enemies foreign and domestic).
Absolutely. As opined on FR before, Obama has something on Roberts which is used to influences Roberts's decisions.
Roberts imported his adopted kids from Russia thru central America—so Barry S. OWNS HIS ASS.
Focktard Roberts is a crooked lawyer in a black robe. The idiot needs to be impeached.
I hope Roberts has regretted his ACA decision ever since, and will follow the clear law and strike down the IRS subsidies.
He was willing to defy the administration several times this last term.
Maybe the first time the political pressure got to him and he found a way to tacitly uphold the law.
Now it’s a question of clear statutory interpretation and the language is crystal clear. Despite what the media says, the ruling by the DC Circuit wasn’t narrow. It just followed the plain and clear language of the statute.
They are just upset that the court wouldn’t “interpret” it in such a way that the left can modify the statute without having to pass a new law.
Too bad lefties. You drafted it and you live with it!
That’s what I’d say.
It will be interesting to see how Roberts will be able to insert something into the law by implication that doesn’t exist in reality.
It will be interesting to see the “penumbra” of national socialism that is used as the basis of his ruling.
I would not be surprised if that one thing is something more sinister than most people would imagine. If not something dark in his past that the dems discovered, I'd bet on a direct threat to his family.
John Roberts is being blackmailed by the WH. He is not going to change his mind because he can’t even if he wanted to.
Maybe Roberts is a true believer in Communism, or maybe this time he will vote his conscience, if not.
he values his own more than he values his country and its citizens and don’t forget, he started out as a lawyer.
Roberts drew attention to the legal mechanism by which this intrusion is taking place and expanding itself. He is Chief Justice, not a politician, so he used what he's empowered to use - a judicial ruling. And in that ruling, contrary to popular opinion, he did not create new law. Rather, he obeyed existing law so tightly that he focused a laser beam on exactly, precisely how it is being abused by the government.
In doing this, he tried to show Americans this mechanism, and confirm with the authority of his position that it is in fact the actual mechanism and not some mere legal theory. He pointed out the details of what everyone knows but no one can definitively find - the legal method, the actual statutes, whereby this is being done, and thus the legal method by which it can be stopped - namely, it's intrinsic and self-declared limitations.
However, few got the message. And concerning those who did get it, a quote from Winston Churchill comes to mind: “Occasionally people stumble over the truth. Most dust themselves off and continue walking as though nothing had happened.”
Therefore, for the record, once again:
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
I still wonder about the day he took the Oath, how Roberts had to redo the Oath to Obama...exactly what was said when they were together? Was that just an excuse to get him alone- to threaten him, remind him of the file they have on him?
That whole scenario was just “suspicious”.
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.