The Chief Justice needs to uphold the Constitution.
One forgets....4 others sided with Roberts.
Whatever was used to blackmail him into voting for the ACA is probably still a viable threat to Roberts and his cushy job.... My guess is the White Hut isn’t too awfully worried about this.
after the ‘obamacare is tax’ debacle John Roberts has been compromised.
either his out of country adoptions or he’s gay.
either way he has been turned once and may be turned again.
And this really, really bothers him.
> “But by claiming the power to forge ahead based on his executive authority, the president may well lose the one ***conservative*** he still really needs: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.”
Roberts a Conservative?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Stop it! You’re killing me!
Roberts maybe the 2nd most hated man in America.
He sure has betrayed our constitution for his convenience.
” the president may well lose the one conservative he still really needs”
Umm, don’t these authors even stop for a moment to think about what they are writing? If the marxist president is at risk for losing a previous ally, that ally is not a conservative!
Idiots.
Whatever Roberts truly is, the word Conservative would not be used to describe it. His materialization of “It’s a Tax” after the Liberal side had argued that it wasn’t, revealed him to be anything but a Conservative.
In the future when he’s labeled a Conservative, remember that John McCain is also.
Those labels are used to destroy the label, not reveal the man.
The disgraceful idiot Gruber recently proved Roberts was correct - it was a tax, the fact that Democrats lied to the contrary notwithstanding.
If the administration "owned" Roberts and his bizarre decision on the first Obamacare case, one would think they can still commpel his vote.
Accordingly, Roberts' decision in this case will tell us a great deal.
Roberts reasoning on Obamacare was clearly corrupt. If a law is unconstitutional (in Obamacare’s case, lack of power of Congress to act under the Commerce Clause), you cannot then say you can still enforce the unconstitutional law through the taxing power.
That’s pretty basic constitutional law, known as the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine,” mainly from a case called Nolan v. California Coastal Commission. There, the CCC tried to deny a remodeling permit unless the homeowner gave rights to use a portion of their land for a lateral beach access. The Supreme Court said the direct action would have been an unconstitutional taking of property (forcing the landowner to give rights in the land). Since it was unconstitutional, forcing the landowner to give the land in exchange for getting a permit was likewise unconstitutional.
Under Robert’s rationale, the taxing power can be used now to force people to comply with all sort of illegal and unlawful actions of the government.
Roberts is bought and PAID FOR...
Good guy = House of Reps..
BAD guy = Senate...
Onlooker = White House..
Door Guard = Supreme Court..
People behind one way glass watching = Main Stream Media..
*** America is being Questioned by various enshrined THUGGS...
in A Kabuki Stage Play all costumes, makeup, strange noises, and posturing LIKE a RAP Concert..
The question!... Just HOW STUPID and scared are you?.. DON’T LIE TO ME..
It IS a tax. Sadly for all of us, Roberts got that right. If he did it because he’s an “Obama ally”, Roberts should be impeached. if he did it because that’s how he interpreted the law, then he may still have integrity.
We’ll see.
His vote on Obamacare proved that.
Thank you for referencing that article PROCON. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.
Note the the term “executive order” had been used earlier in the lawless Obama administration to justify many of Obama’s unconstitutional actions. But the term was changed to “executive action” when the WH likely wised up to the reality that a growing number of voters where probably catching on to the fact that executive orders were meaningless unless legislatively supported by Congress.
Also note that corrupt Congress didn’t nessarily have the constitutional authority to support some of Obama’s executive orders, or whatever the WH wants to call them, even if Congress supported an executive action.
So beware of “news” agencies like Obama guard dogs LA Times and Fx News who use the term “executive action” without noting that there are major constitutional problems with it.
