Posted on 10/23/2013 4:56:24 PM PDT by dontreadthis
I of all people am for independent thinking and action on the part of people, but we have been sooo brainwashed by the government and U.S. press most people don't have a clue as to what is happening.
You should certainly do what you want, but I HIGHLY suggest you DO NOT sign up for Obamacare until you read this CAREFULLY. Chief Justice Roberts carefully worded his ruling and left out any requirement to participate for 95% of Americans.
(Excerpt) Read more at nesaranews.blogspot.com ...
How bout you post the stuff here ?
To which I'll respond, you go ahead and test out your theory first.
Baloney. Roberts ruling is about as bad as Blackmun’s ruling in R v W.
fr would not permit
I kinda thought so too. And even if it isn’t, just try fighting it. The legal cost will kill you.
You know, instead of parsing words, he could have just stated outright that it was unconstitutional.
He didn’t do that, so all of this is garbage.
Traitor Roberts wrecked his legacy with a one Justice tortured torpedo ruling (not just opinion) aimed directly at the American Public.
And Nero saved Rome by playing his fiddle in C sharp instead of C flat
I read as much as I could tolerate of this nitwit. My opinion of Roberts isn't changed by this article which selectively ignores certain aspects of Roberts' actions.
In essence, what Roberts did was legislate from the bench, something that Judge Bork noted was a growing problem during his approval hearing. He also played semantics with the words "penalties" and "taxes". After twisting and turning his opinion every which way, CJ Roberts arrived at his now infamous convoluted ruling that stuck us all with this pig legislation.
The nitwit who wrote this article ignores the thousands of pages of legal analysis following Roberts' ruling that highlighted how far he had to go around the bend to make a very poor, very weak argument to allow ZeroCare to become law. Dozens of legal analysts far more educated and experienced than nitwit all agreed that Roberts had more twists and turns in his opinion than pretzel dough, but nitwit thinks he knows better.
There isno C flat; its B...: )
I read through it but I’m not a lawyer (thank God). It is a lot of legalese that seems to boil down to the curbs placed on government to collect a tax penalty using criminal actions and liens. It is more technical than this and also gets into other definitions, such as timeliness. If I had faith the government would follow the law and some other judge sees things the way Robert’s sees them, it may work. For a lawless government and corrupt judiciary, especially a tax judge, forget it.
Agree. The author seems to applaud Robert’s being clever, not straight forward.
This article is from the NESARA website, which should be a red flag that it’s likely to be nonsense. And, having now read it, I can tell you as a lawyer that it IS nonsense; it’s full of usual Tax Protester arguments about how only corporations have to pay income taxes, yadda yadda.
Here’s a brief summary, ppppppppppppppppppppffffffffffffttt.
thanks to all, but in retrospect I think it was a waste of everyone’s time to read this
Thanks for that confirmation. I got that impression when I saw all the focus on the definitions.
A well written judicial opinion should leave no doubt that the decision was the correct one. If the decision is open to numerous interpretations and parsing, then it was poorly written and decided. The Roberts opinion is clearly in the latter category.
THIS ARTICLE IS A REPRINT OF MY POST:
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
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.