Posted on 06/28/2012 4:56:21 AM PDT by John W
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.