Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling
Business Insider ^ | Jun. 28, 2012, | Grace Wyler

Posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-315 next last
To: little jeremiah
For me, what Roberts did was “the most unkindest cut of all”. It left me in tears.
181 posted on 06/29/2012 2:16:40 AM PDT by Razz Barry (Round'em up, send'em home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Liberals absolutely love John Roberts. He’s the new media lib plaything like John McCain.


182 posted on 06/29/2012 2:19:52 AM PDT by PAConservative1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Lipstick meets pig. Here, we may have a case of more lipstick than pig.


183 posted on 06/29/2012 2:48:56 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (God-issued, not govt-issued.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

” The fate of Obama Care is now firmly in the hands of the electorate”

Considering the fact that this is the same electorate that put obama in office in the first place, that isn’t a comforting thought.


184 posted on 06/29/2012 2:52:52 AM PDT by lowbridge (Joe Biden: "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kingu
"Alito, Thomas and Scalia probably overreached in their dissents, but I very much appreciate Robert's viewpoint that the SCOTUS is not the third house of Congress and a restoration of the balance of powers."

Curious why you didn't mention Kennedy, the author of the dissent.

That aside, Roberts and his liberal co-horts wrote new law into the ACA by calling a fine a tax.

185 posted on 06/29/2012 2:53:29 AM PDT by A Navy Vet (An Oath is Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; All

Failed logic, there are 2 parts,

1. The individual mandate requires people to buy insurance

2. The penalty is to pay a tax


186 posted on 06/29/2012 3:05:25 AM PDT by Son House (The Economic Boom Heard Around The World => TEA Party 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
Right, because Roberts ON HIS OWN made the individual mandate a tax issue noncompliance to Obamacare now means prison!

It was better when it was still a mere “penalty.”

Not since Roe v Wade has the SCOTUS screwed up so bad that countless lives have and will be destroyed.

Roberts is the devil.

187 posted on 06/29/2012 3:05:49 AM PDT by Happy Rain ("Obama is doing America like Bill Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky--"He' RIDIN' DIRTY!!!"')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

There’s no fixing this on fine points, like whether a tax must go into effect to be challenged.
The libs won and they will quickly move on — to a new Constitutional Convention.
Mark my words.


188 posted on 06/29/2012 3:05:49 AM PDT by Lady Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right; originalbuckeye; Kegger
(good luck repealing it, dem's will forever filibuster any repeal attempt)

Because the majority has declared it a tax bill, it now becomes immune to a filibuster. All that is required for repeal is a simple majority in both houses and the President's signature. The problem here will be whether Republicans will actually vote to repeal once they take control of the Senate in January.

189 posted on 06/29/2012 3:07:09 AM PDT by Hoodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling

Whatever. His actions killed us.

Try explaining this to all of the businesses that are going to have to close, all of the resulting unemployed and all of the bankrupted families who can't afford the "largest tax increase in the history of mankind".

F* him, he's killed us...

190 posted on 06/29/2012 3:22:28 AM PDT by Caipirabob (I say we take off and Newt the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tflabo

” Can’t he (Roberts) just come up with a straight, non-nuanced decision based upon the principles of the US Constitution? “

NO !!!! everything inside the boundry of DC is beyond corrupt


191 posted on 06/29/2012 3:26:25 AM PDT by SF_Redux (Sarah stands for accountablility and personal responsiblity, democrats can't live with that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I’m sorry, LJ, but Roberts did not injure Obama at all today.

Today’s decision gave Obama ObamaCare. It also gave it to America.

Worse, the legislation was specifically written as a mandate, and in order to save it, Roberts said that it was written as a tax.

He created a fix out of clean air. That’s the worst that happened today. The Court is now on record with a precedent that if you can change a word or two in any legislation, then go ahead and do it. They should have changed the wording of the stolen valor act, too. They should have changed words in the Arizona law. But they didn’t.

They only changed words in the healthcare law.

Now WE are funding abortion.


192 posted on 06/29/2012 3:38:34 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

— John Roberts, 2005.


193 posted on 06/29/2012 3:40:46 AM PDT by Lady Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonic109

“I REFUSE TO PLAY ALONG”

all taxes are voluntary, Sheehan refuses to pay her taxes as an objector and hasn’t filed or paid since 2005 and is still out and walking around.


194 posted on 06/29/2012 3:46:42 AM PDT by urbanpovertylawcenter (where the law and poverty collide in an urban setting and sparks fly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
It's now clear to me after studying the court's opinion that Chief Justice Roberts specifically addressed the Anti-Injunction Act. That's the act that prohibits the court from reviewing taxes until they're enacted. I think he's drawing a ridiculously fine line, but I understand his point that the Anti-Injunction Act was only written to apply to things that Congress calls taxes.

CJ Roberts applied two levels of criteria to decide whether or not the SCOTUS could review Obamacare as a “tax.” Limits imposed by Congress in laws, like the Anti-Injunction Act (AJA), are applied literally. Congress called it a “penalty,” but the AJA specifically applied only to a “tax.” Since it wasn't called a “tax,” the Anti-Injunction Act can't apply.

Constitutional limits, on the other hand, require a much higher level of analysis that cannot be restrained by simple legislative acts or terminology. If the constitution permits taxes on income, for example, anything that's effectively an income tax has to be treated (constitutionally) as such even if Congress calls it something else. I'm not saying CJ Roberts is right, it just appears he believes the constitution cuts to the heart of an issue, while law is taken at face value.

He makes the point it doesn't matter if Congress calls something a penalty if it more accurately fits the description of a tax. Alternately, something isn't a penalty if doesn't met the criteria of a penalty from previous rulings (regardless of what Congress calls it).

The four liberal justices didn't surprise. They ruled the Commerce Clause pretty much lets the federal government do anything. The four conservative justices also didn't surprise. They took Obamacare at face value. If Congress called the mandate a penalty, for example, the four justices treated it as such.

CJ Roberts seems driven by something that doesn't fall into either conservative or liberal definitions (trying to find the right words to describe him). He tried to determine whether the law's effect was constitutional and did not take it at face value like the other justices. That could work for us or against us depending on the case.

I think the mandate could be challenged again on the grounds that it's effectively an income tax (for constitutionality purposes), but it didn't originate in the House. I don't believe that particular issue was addressed. The dissenters treated it as a penalty, and the libs thought it was regulating commerce. Only CJ Roberts seemed keen on making it a tax, and he can't ignore the strict constitutional standards he's applied here if he's consistent.

BTW, Congress could have simply raised taxes and given a rebate for having private health insurance. Wouldn't that be constitutional? I think so. They haven't traditionally assigned tax increases for not doing something, but CJ Roberts is probably right Congress can do nearly anything it wants with income. As we know, The 16th Amendment is pretty broad.

195 posted on 06/29/2012 3:48:54 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Does anybody think ANY Democrat Senator, Congressman, or Obama will even want to be anywhere near the campaign trail this fall with this Tax Monster draped around their neck?

If the Pubbies don’t manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again...we’re talking 70 senators!!!


196 posted on 06/29/2012 3:58:41 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier; Stingray
Roberts didn't say the mandate was unconstitutional. The government made two arguments to justify the mandate. Only the first one dealt with the Commerce Clause. The government's second point was even if the Commerce Clause didn't apply, the mandate was effectively an income tax. Roberts shot down their first argument but agreed with the second.

Personally, I wouldn't have went through all the legal wranglings Robert did to try and determine constitutionality. I would have taken Congress at its word. In other words, they said the mandate was a penalty and treated it as such. However, I see Roberts’ point that previous SCOTUS rulings have defined certain elements that are required for something to be, in fact, a penalty, and that criteria doesn't fit the mandate.

Can Congress encourage certain behaviors by giving income tax breaks? Apparently it can. It certainly does. Could it do the opposite, assign a higher tax rate to someone for not doing something it wants? I'm trying to think of an instance like that, but I'm drawing a blank. Nevertheless, there's a very small distinction in my opinion between giving out tax breaks based on behavior and assigning tax increases for same.

That blasted 16th Amendment was written so poorly it pretty much allows the federal government to do whatever it wants with our incomes. I think we need some constitutional amendments to reign in the madness.

197 posted on 06/29/2012 4:04:56 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
This ruling has just solidified Bob McDonnell as Veep. We now desperately need that Virginia Senate seat. (Allen)

I decided today to revoke my pledge to never vote for Romney. I will hold my nose (and other parts) and vote for the wimp party, one more time. Obama and his (Obamacare) legacy MUST BE STOPPED!!!

Which would I prefer Obama nominated Supreme Court Justices or Romney nominated Supreme Court Justices?

Bush may have given us Roberts, but he also gave us Alito.

Would Obama give us an Alito?

198 posted on 06/29/2012 4:15:03 AM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

Another such victory and we will be finished.


199 posted on 06/29/2012 4:15:30 AM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Roberts did indeed eviscerate the "commerce clause" and the "necessary and proper" arguments.

But that's no reason to celebrate, because the rest of the ruling says that they don't matter anyway, and that Congress has essentially unlimited power to compel anyone to do anything, as long as the noncompliance penalty is a "tax".

Congress can stop the decades-long "commerce clause" tap dance now and simply ram whatever they want through by making the penalties "taxes/fines" rather than jail time. But if you accumulate enough taxes that you can't pay them, what happens in the end anyway?

Who needs an "assault weapons ban"? We'll just levy a $10,000 annual tax on "assault weapons"! The ones who can afford to pay that are the ones we'd generally exempt anyway! You didn't separate your recyclables out of your trash? That's a $1,000 tax per offense. Every house is required to have solar panels, or pay $2,500 a year in extra tax.

And so on, and so on...

200 posted on 06/29/2012 4:16:42 AM PDT by kevkrom (Those in a rush to trample the Constitution seem to forget that it is the source of their authority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-315 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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