Posted on 06/28/2012 4:56:21 AM PDT by John W
Today is the day. SCOTUSblog live at 8:45 AM.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.wpengine.com ...
If I understand it..What they held was that they could not punish states by withholding present funding for Medicaid.
Sounds like Roberts was fishing for an excuse to be able to say the Constitution allows Obamacare. He grasped at the Obama lawyer’s #3 argument as possibly having merit, and used it to justify upholding Obamacare.
But he didn’t like it and if his eyes were red it was probably because he hated what he was doing and didn’t believe a word of it.
IOW, Roberts was told that he would make this decision or the country’s economy would be destroyed immediately - and as a crap sandwich Soros/Obama also told him he had to be the one to read the verdict. Piss be on Obama though - because Roberts couldn’t rape his country with a smile, and their sadistic attempt to make him do so has revealed the whole thing (along with other signals Roberts and others have given in the past).
And now the whole world should know exactly what is going on here. Our country is literally taken hostage.
Leni
The truth will come out in time.
[ All that needs to be done now is repeat 4 simple words Glenn Beck has been saying the last few weeks.
I. Will. Not. Comply. ]
YES! He is exactly right!
You nailed it, Alice-in-Bubbaland.
You nibbled the correct cookie.
Leni
” This will do more to increase the UNABATED scourge of illegal aliens than Reagan’s amnesty did. The word is spreading in Mexico and they will overrun us in droves.”
That is Obama’s plan.
Weeeeellllppp...guess that settles it. Socialist dystopia, here we come; Alcohol, here I come.
Very passive aggressive reply. Typical of your ilk.
I wonder if Clarence Thomas has been talking to Rush. He would know that Roberts is the one who’s kept the eligibility cases from being heard - and thus apparently compromised. Thomas could tell Rush that without telling Rush what the Obamacare decision was going to be.
The the average American citizen who is not an attorney, this bill is clearly unconstitutional. They can legalese their way out of it and call the ACA a tax and punt it back to the legislative branch. . but it still is, as most of us understand it, unconstitutional and an assault on our individual liberties. "Legalese" and "Tricks" don't go over well with most Americans. . . November 6th folks. . Rally the troops!
” Roberts didn’t want to over-rule Congress. What he missed was that even Congress has no power to do something unconstitutional.”
Over-rule Congress? Why, the whole thing was a ruse...a “shakedown” a payoff to
Governors
AARP
Unions(exempt)
It was racketeering at its finest.
It was a criminal enterprise, locking the Republicans entirely out of the picture. Roberts is now complicit in this gangsterism!
I’m not going to deny that it looks that way.
It would be nice to know more. We can speculate to our heart’s content, but that’s not conclusive.
What the heck kind of ruling is that?
It's from Sharia Law, and it's called the jizyah - all non-Muslims must pay it for the privilege of living in Muslim lands.
In the case of ObamaCare, basically if you're not a Leftist or a protected minority, you either buy the mandated insurance or pay the tax.
” Further...
It’s not a tax. It’s a FINE. It is punitive.”
Explain that to 160 IQ Roberts. Something really smells here.
Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices.”
Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices.”
What about those “tinfoilers” who have been crying out that there’s a major push for One World Governance, or that the true purpose of the Government is power: the power to control everyone’s lives?
Umm.. news flash. A lot of that intent is out in the open. You don’t have to be a tinfoiler to believe that.
Those of us who decry the tinfoilers are people who generally believe Occam’s razor and don’t need elaborate explanations involving secret conspiracies, when the simple explanation, that politicians want power and many people actually believe that socialism/statism is good and should be imposed, acceptably explains the observed facts.
That is basically correct. The ACA law does not force Americans to buy health insurance. It just taxes us if we don’t buy it. You won’t go to jail IF you pay the tax, and that is just like federal income taxes. It sounds to me like this ruling is legally correct. It’s tough medicine for America in the short run, but probably better for this country in the long run because the ruling demonstrates that we can’t rely on the courts to overturn really bad legislation passed by nasty socialists like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. This ruling shows that Americans have to vote for better people to serve in the legislature if we want really good legislation to be enacted.
Contrary to what many people (including some amateur DNC operatives) have written on this thread, Romney will sincerely make every effort to repeal the ACA law if elected. He will campaign on repeal of ACA and if elected he’ll have to support repeal to maintain his support among Republicans in congress. Even if Romney wins, if may not be possible to repeal the entire law because of democrat opposition in the senate. But with Romney in the White House I have no doubt that enough senate democrats will vote to repeal most of ACA piece by piece, by voting for new legislation that replaced major parts of the ACA law.
The MA health care law that Romney signed is not a significant political problem—Romney can just say that he has learned that some of the MA law isn’t working well, and he supports repeal of ACA because it’s terrible legislation that forces a very costly and poorly designed system on all the states and takes away the freedom of choice by individuals to buy the kind of health insurance that each individual needs. There are real problems with the current health care system that need to be fixed, in the right way. Denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is just too tough on people who have a medical condition and then lose their job and coverage. That can amount to sentencing people to bankruptcy. But we still need strong incentives for people to buy health insurance and not wait until they have an illness. Romney has to find the smart middle ground on health care policy. Go Mitt Go!
Excerpt:
Americans saw wealth plummet 40 percent from 2007 to 2010, Federal Reserve says * * *Actually, the situation is really far worse. Since 1972 our fiat currency has been diminished by about 70% in value by insane corrupt Federal Reserve policies. JMHO folks. Do your own research. But apples used to cost about 19 cents a pound and today people are paying about $ 1.90 a pound on sale at Safeway.The recent recession wiped out nearly two decades of Americans’ wealth, according to government data released Monday, with middle-class families bearing the brunt of the decline.
The Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans roughly on par with where they were in 1992. * * * Source:
LOL !
An interesting, and very true statement, but I still fail to see how that grants Congress the power to tax “living and breathing.”
” Roberts is acting under duress.”
By a face with no name....at least the MSM will never divulge it.
” Further...
Congress does have the power to tax our income.
Congress does not have the power to tax our very existence.”
They do now!
I believe something different may have happened here.
Roberts knew this ruling would gift wrap a huge issue for Mitt Romney, the Republicans and the Tea Party movement.
They are setting things up for a GOP sweep in November - Obama has been a fall guy from day one.
You give Roberts WAAYYYY too much credit.
Funny way to wrap a skunk poop.
Saying no like Kennedy did would have left Democrats in a high dudgeon but also warned America it had better look especially carefully to who is in the Senate and White House if it didn’t want the freshly buried monster to spring back up.
Maybe nobody brought up the argument “hey if this is a tax then it’s a capricious and punitive one.” If not fed the argument, the court can’t regurgitate it.
It’s sort of beyond the initial scope of their investigation, but I gave a list of some corroborating evidence of this to Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse. It took some doing though, because somebody - apparently Homeland Security - wouldn’t let me send to Mike’s e-mail, just for that time when I was trying to send him this info. Other e-mails to him were intercepted later as well, but at that particular time they were letting my e-mails get through to him until I brought up the Soros run on the bank and the threats I believe Soros/Obama made to various people to get them to ignore the eligibility issue.
At this point there has been so much crime committed that even if we had every investigator in the world on it, we wouldn’t be able to root out all the crimes committed. And currently we have “law enforcement” SUPPRESSING any investigation of the truth. It’s an uphill battle.
So for the time being speculation is all we can do. But when a guy has red eyes and is obviously unhappy reading his own decision, it’s obvious that he was forced to write and read it and that he doesn’t agree with it.
Like a kid who spits out the words, “OK, OK, I’m sorry” and then angrily skulks out of the room. What you know from that is that they are NOT sorry.
This was NOT Roberts’ decision. And the obvious question for anybody with a brain is why he gave a decision he hated.
Doesn’t take a whole lot of speculation to answer that one, because there aren’t a whole lot of options.
“OK, then, you tell me why Roberts gave a decision that he obviously HATED giving.”
Oh, gee, I don’t know. Maybe he hates the law, but actually thinks Congress has a right to pass it under their taxation powers.
“And while you’re at it, why don’t you tell me why he gave an ex part invitation to Obama on the very day that SCOTUS was considering Donofrio’s eligibility lawsuit.”
Perhaps Obama asked for the invitation and he was being polite and respectful to the office of the Presidency.
I’m not going to dignify the rest of your stuff with simpler explanations for the facts, though I remain fully capable of doing so, because I’m being paid by the Gnomes of Zurich to be part of the Marxist/Islamist conspiracy. Or possibly because I don’t feel like wasting my time debating people like you. Take your pick as to which explanation is more reasonable.
If Roberts believed that, why the red eyes and obvious unhappiness?
Not only did they lock out Republicans, they locked out the whole medical industry.
Hospitals
Physicians
Pharmaceutical Companies
other Healthcare providers
The only people they let in were Marxist Politicians and Marxist academics.
Their reasoning seemed to go something like this.
“We must keep out all groups that are involved with health care, because they are the problem, and cannot contribute any first-hand knowledge or suggestions to tweak, repair, or renew.”
FAIL
It sure does.
Romney said he will replace Obamacare!! WTF do you think that means?
Let me think. A GOP sweep in November or upholding the Constitution for our children and grandchildren.
I can't believe that was Robert's reasoning or lack of it.
You don’t think a guy with an IQ of 160 can tell the difference between a tax and a fine?
Ex parte is ex parte. And to announce an ex parte meeting INITIATED AND PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED IN A PRESS RELEASE BY THE JUDGE ON THE VERY DAY THAT A CASE INVOLVING THAT DEFENDANT WAS BEING DECIDED.... wow, if you can justify that, then it really is a waste of time to argue with you. You couldn’t recognize a porkchop at a kosher wedding.
” Maybe nobody brought up the argument “hey if this is a tax then it’s a capricious and punitive one.” If not fed the argument, the court can’t regurgitate it.”
We should not allow ourselves to fall for the “dodge” This isn’t about a tax, it is about the biggest federal power grab in our history! It is about brute force (IRS). It is about FORCING a free people to pay for something, just because the government “feels” like it.
As FReeper Doughty one posted. This is a tax just for you being alive! Just for existing in this country!
It’s an odd tax, though, both in having waiveability written into its code and in having exemptions for the indigent.
Roberts has ensured that he will be the new darling of the mainstream media. He’ll be invited to all the best cocktail parties in Washington and receiving glowing reviews by the likes of Chris Matthews about his “independence” and “courage” in breaking away from his alleged conservative past. He’ll quickly become another Souter, the other clown picked by the Bush Dynasty. Given Roberts votes on these various decisions, the Obamacare vote cannot be put down to some fine point of constitutional analysis. Roberts has consciously chosen to veer left. This is just the beginning of his transformation. Wait and see.
READ THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - WHO DOES THIS SOUND LIKE?
* He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
* He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
* He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
* He {intends to keep} among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
* He {intends to render} the military independent of and superior to civil power.
* He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws...
* For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent...
* For depriving us in many {future} cases, of the benefits of trial by jury...
* He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless ... savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
* In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Interesting take on it. I’m abroad (in Spain) right now, and people are very confused by this ruling, because rightly or wrongly, they take it as the approval of a socialized medicine system which is one of the very things that has gotten them into trouble here. In fact, just yesterday, the government announced that they were going to stop covering things such as ibuprofen and laxatives, and people are calling for Rajoy’s head - and then we go and approve a system that will be exactly the same as europe’s failed system.
That said, I think Roberts was so afraid of being viewed as political that he just viewed it through the narrowest legal lens possible. I do think this gives the GOP every reason to revisit it, though, especially since Obama argued on more than one occasion that it was NOT a tax.
Sadly, I don’t have any confidence in Romney. He’s a big government, statist member of a theocratic cult, and this shows in his Romney Care for Massachusetts.
If anybody else were our candidate, I’d say this would hand him the election. But not in the case of Romney. The GOP elite always picks the losing candidate, and they had picked Romney since the day after the last election.
Interesting take on it. I’m abroad (in Spain) right now, and people are very confused by this ruling, because rightly or wrongly, they take it as the approval of a socialized medicine system which is one of the very things that has gotten them into trouble here. In fact, just yesterday, the government announced that they were going to stop covering things such as ibuprofen and laxatives, and people are calling for Rajoy’s head - and then we go and approve a system that will be exactly the same as europe’s failed system.
That said, I think Roberts was so afraid of being viewed as political that he just viewed it through the narrowest legal lens possible. I do think this gives the GOP every reason to revisit it, though, especially since Obama argued on more than one occasion that it was NOT a tax.
Sadly, I don’t have any confidence in Romney. He’s a big government, statist member of a theocratic cult, and this shows in his Romney Care for Massachusetts.
If anybody else were our candidate, I’d say this would hand him the election. But not in the case of Romney. The GOP elite always picks the losing candidate, and they had picked Romney since the day after the last election.
BTW, the “respectable” people (ones not using crazy reasoning like mine) were almost ALL saying Roberts would vote against Obamacare, unless Kennedy already upheld Obamacare and Roberts just wanted to make the court not appear divided. I was one of very few people who have been saying for some time that I feared Roberts was compromised and would uphold Obamacare because Soros told him to.
I looked at your posting history and see that you were totally silent at FR in the last 2 months so you didn’t stick your neck out on this at all.
I did. And my suspicion was correct. If Roberts believes Congress can mandate any thing they want as long as any money involved can be called a tax, then why did he say that Congress can’t stifle corporations’ political speech? Couldn’t that be called a tax? I mean, corporations COULD spend money on campaigns, it’s just that the government would punish - er, TAX them at a different rate if they chose to do so... If Roberts was so interested in people suffering the consequences for electing idiots who trample them, then I would think his past decisions would have shown that - and then the REASONABLE (non-nuts) people like you would have had this decision pegged a long time ago.
Why didn’t that happen, Stat Man? Why did only the “kook” get this one right?
Sorry for the double post above...I’m in the hotel bar...
That said, it is odd. To me it sounds like a very narrow reading of the law but the “tax” in question is so strange that I don’t see how it could possibly be upheld by the people who make tax law ( hint: not Obama).
I was really stunned by this decision when I logged on and read it, but now I’m more puzzled.
Roberts makes Warren look honest.
a) How do you know he has an IQ of 160?
b) I know numerous people with IQ’s of 160 plus. None of them are perfect. Several of them have more than one idiotic belief. Most of them have different opinions from each other about the definitions of several different words. Someone with an IQ of 160 is 100% capable of believing that a fine imposed by the government and a tax are essentially the same thing. IQ is about the ABILITY TO REASON FROM ONE’S ASSUMPTIONS. It tells us nothing about whether a person makes correct assumptions, such as the incorrect assumption that fines and taxes are the same thing.
And I wasn’t JUSTIFYING anything. I was simply pointing out Occam’s razor that simpler explanations are more likely to be true. I simply illustrated one possible simpler explanation... so what if it was a poor one. The fact remains that there are numerous possible explanations that are much simpler than your convoluted one.
The simple explanations failed to predict this outcome.
Scientifically speaking, what would that suggest to you?
Also, the “simple” explanation for the ex parte invitation made very public by the judge on the very day that the defendant’s case was being considered is only “simple” on the most merely physical level.
It’s sort of like the “simple” explanation for a man eating another man’s face being that he just got hungry. Isn’t that the reasonable thing that everybody concludes when they see one man eating another man’s face? It’s simple so it must be true...
But we still need strong incentives for people to buy health insurance and not wait until they have an illness.
Isn’t the first step to some sort of honest tax reform, Fair tax, where EVERYONE has skin in the game?
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.