Posted on 07/01/2012 4:38:05 PM PDT by NoLibZone
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts’ swing vote to uphold ‘Obamacare’ under Congress’s taxing powers has drawn praise from his usual critics. One top Democratic senator lauded Roberts’ “judicial independence” in saving President Obama’s signature law, but also argued that the Bush-appointed jurist broke his promise by narrowing the scope of the Commerce Clause.
In his opinion, Roberts explained in detail why he believes his view is not inconsistent with precedent, siding with conservative architects of the legal challenge in the argument that Congress may not regulate inaction.
“In my view it certainly merited upholding under the Commerce Clause,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), his party’s leader on messaging. “I do worry, in the future, about the courts limiting the Commerce Clause as a way of limiting the ability of the federal government to help average
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
The only dope who got roped was Roberts.
And the four communist justices all agreed with Roberts.
yitbos
They did not agree with Roberts on the Commerce issue. That is why this changes nothing on Commerce powers.
“No. He didn’t.”
You are correct. As soon as the progressives have one more seat on the court they will reverse the opinions of the past they disagree with and will rewrite the Constitution to suit their wishes.
Does the stopping of Medicaid negate Obamacare?
Schumer expected Roberts to observe precedents set by prior decisions. In Chuckie’s view, since Willard v. Filburn, there have been NO limits to government power under the Commerce Clause. As far as he, and prior courts, were concerned, the Commerce Clause was the green light to virtually unlimited Federal control and intervention.
So, for Roberts to posit some limits, in Chuckie’s twisted view, is a break with a precedent that he really likes.
Chucky is a Schmucky and a Schleppy Rat he is,
A snarky, lefty commie, he serves trouble as his biz.
Chuckie is lying.
He can’t produce the promise.
He is interpreting Roberts past decisions to arrive at a “promise”.
I cannot think of another senator who I would like to be in the presence of any less than Chuck Schumer.
(Great sentence, eh?)
Roberts upheld the law and made some comments about the commerce clause. Since he upheld the law on the basis of something other than commerce, no matter how much he rails against the commerce application of mandates, all he has done is offer reasoning.
He has established no future path on commerce mandates that must be followed.
Roberts is too cute by half, and everyone trying to salvage something substantive out of his narcissistic theory is simply enabling a guy who is over-the-top in love with himself.
The bottom line is that Roberts upheld and strengthened massive government and massive government’s intrusion into our lives.
Left is trying to defuse Tea Party activist anger. the best way to motivate someone to come out and vote is to make them angry.
Chuck is no dummy....he knows the Roberts opinion will make the dem jobs much harder in the future by limiting the powers of Congress to rape the average citizen....
He just concerned they will actually have to sell their pablum in the harsh light of the law.... No more phony BS legislation tricks....
No surprise there. This begs the question, do Republicans have a party leader on messaging?
I apologize for Schumer. I’m from NY so there is no one to blame but me and my fellow NY voters. What a dunderhead. He is embarrassing.
This is such a joke. Roberts did not narrow the scope of the Commerce clause one bit. Since the ruling had the opposite effect, I don’t think his CYA will be recognized by any court.
Promise? What promise?
That's nice. Does that mean that the commerce clause cannot be used to order us to get into cattle cars? /s
It could if congress refuses to fund the 30 million new Medicaid recipients.
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.